RAMASWAMI REDDI Vs. DEIVASIGAMANI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree was passed by the District Munsiff in favour of the 8 defendant who was transposed at the fag end of the trial of the suit as 2nd plaintiff, notwithstanding the opposition of the defendants 1 to 7 on the one hand and the 1 plaintiff on the other. This decree has now been upset by the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore and the second appeal has been preferred by the 8 defendant- 2nd plaintiff.

(2.) The procedure followed in the District Munsiff's Court was, to say the least, extraordinary. The plaint was originally only against defendants 1 to 7. Later, the plaintiff filed a petition to implead the 8 defendant as a party on the ground that he was claiming some right in the suit properties and that he might be allowed to state his objections. This petition was allowed and the 8 defendant came on record and he set up title to the property in himself as against the plaintiff and as against the 1 defendant. He also suggested by means of a petition that the 9th defendant, one Kokilambal Ammal might be made a party to the suit so that any title that she might have to the property might be investigated. This was also ordered. The 9 defendant stated that the deed under which the claim was made was a nominal transaction and that the title was with the 8 defendant himself. The 8 defendant filed a written statement impeaching the title of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff and stating that at the instigation of the enemies the mother of the minor plaintiff had made him a party and that the plaintiff's title was false. According to him, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants 1 to 7 had any manner of right whatsoever in the suit property. He also prayed that the Court may be pleased to pass a decree declaring that the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit property and, directing that he be transposed as the 2nd plaintiff and be put in possession of the suit property.

(3.) As stated already, after the suit had practically been heard and just before its final end, the 8 defendant filed I.A. No. 1021 of 1943 on 28 August, 194.3, to be transposed as a plaintiff. This was stoutly opposed by the 1 defendant. Even the plaintiff who wanted the 8 defendant to come on record made a show of opposition by filing a memorandum of objections stating that the petition of the 8 defendant was frivolous and vexatious and that he cannot be transposed as a plaintiff on the benefit of the court-fees paid by himself and that he refused to have him on his side. Despite this opposition, the District Munsiff made up his mind to transpose the 8 defendant as a co-plaintiff and on the evidence he found that the plaintiff had no title but that the title set up by the 8 defendant was true and hence he gave in his favour a decree for possession.