- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramaswami Reddi v. Deivasigamani Pillai And Others
Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The suit originally named defendants 1 to 7. Subsequently, the plaintiff petitioned to implead the 8th defendant on the ground that he claimed some right in the suit properties and sought to state objections; the petition was allowed and the 8th defendant came on record. The 8th defendant set up title to the property adverse to both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, filed a written statement challenging the title of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7, and prayed for a decree declaring the plaintiff not entitled to the property and for his own transposition as 2nd plaintiff together with possession.
During the late stages of the trial (after the suit had practically been heard), the 8th defendant filed I.A. No. 1021 of 1943 on 28-8-1943 seeking transposition as a plaintiff. This application was opposed by the 1st defendant and, in an apparently performative opposition, by the plaintiff who filed objections. Despite opposition, the District Munsif transposed the 8th defendant as a co-plaintiff, found that the plaintiff had no title and that the 8th defendant's title was true, and decreed possession in favour of the 8th defendant.
The Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, on appeal set aside the District Munsif's decree in favour of the 8th defendant. The 8th defendant preferred a second appeal against that decision. The present opinion concerns that second appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether it was proper, at the penultimate stage of trial, to transpose the 8th defendant—who asserted a title adverse to the plaintiff and some defendants—as a co-plaintiff and then decree possession in his favour.
- Whether Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (relating to addition or transposition of parties) is sufficiently wide to permit adding a party or transposing a party in order to decide all questions that relate to the subject-matter of the suit, including questions of title asserted by a newly impleaded party whose interests are adverse to the existing parties.
- Whether a third party who sets up a title contrary to the rival claims of two other litigants may be impleaded and treated as a co-plaintiff so that his title can be investigated and decided against the objections of the existing parties.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (8th defendant) / Appellant's Advocate
- Argued that once the 8th defendant had been impleaded and a question of title had arisen between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7, the Court was bound to adjudicate on the title of these parties, and Order I Rule 10 was wide enough to permit addition/transposition of parties to decide all questions relating to the subject-matter of the suit.
- Relied on three decisions (Vanjiappa Goundan v. Annamalai Chettiar; Parasuram Mangacharyulu v. Parasuram Balarama Krishnamacharyulu; Montgomery v. Foy Morgan & Co.) to support the contention that the Court could transpose or add parties for full adjudication of relevant questions.
- The opinion notes, however, that even the learned Advocate for the appellant did not seriously seek to maintain the decree of the District Munsif.
Opposing Parties (Plaintiff and 1st Defendant)
- The 1st defendant stoutly opposed the 8th defendant's petition to be transposed as a plaintiff.
- The plaintiff, despite earlier seeking the 8th defendant's presence on record, filed a memorandum of objections to the transposition petition, describing it as frivolous and vexatious, refusing to have the 8th defendant on his side, and disputing that the 8th defendant could be transposed to take advantage of the Court-fees paid by the plaintiff.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vanjiappa Goundan v. Annamalai Chettiar | Illustrates a situation where a second plaintiff was present from the commencement, had interests adverse to the 1st plaintiff, and the Court found it expedient to strike out his name as second plaintiff but observed that because his presence was necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate all questions involved, he could be transposed as a defendant. | The court distinguished this case from the present facts, noting it involved different circumstances (the second plaintiff was originally in the suit) and therefore it did not support transposition of a third party with adverse title at the penultimate stage as occurred here. |
| Parasuram Mangacharyulu v. Parasuram Balarama Krishnamacharyulu | In a suit by three plaintiffs claiming to be hereditary archakas, another party petitioned that he was also an archaka; the learned Judge held the relief claimed rendered the presence of the new party necessary. | The court treated this authority as factually different and not analogous to the present case where a third party claimed title adverse to existing parties and was transposed late in the trial. |
| Montgomery v. Foy Morgan & Co. (English decision) | Held that shippers of cargo who had a claim to a set-off by way of damages should be before the Court to decide the plaintiff's claim; otherwise defendants who were only agents would have no defence to the plaintiff's claim. | The court observed that this English decision related to a distinct factual scenario and did not justify the transposition and decree granted to the 8th defendant under the facts of the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The opinion critically examined the procedure adopted by the District Munsif and described it as "extraordinary." The District Munsif allowed the 8th defendant onto the record, permitted him to assert a title adverse to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7, and—after transposing him as a co-plaintiff at a very late stage—found in his favour and decreed possession.
The Subordinate Judge held that the District Munsif's decree could not be sustained because the 8th defendant had no common or like interest with the plaintiff; instead he asserted a title antagonistic to both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The court explained that Order I Rule 10 authorizes the Court to add or transpose parties when their presence is necessary for a complete adjudication of questions in the suit, but that principle applies where the party to be added shares the same or a common interest with the plaintiff (or is necessary to determine rights directly connected with the originally framed suit).
The court reasoned that it was improper to transpose as a co-plaintiff a third party who asserted a title contrary to the rival claims of the primary litigants (A and B), especially when that third party sought adjudication of his adverse title at his own instance or at the suggestion of a colluding plaintiff and only at a late stage of trial. The court emphasized that the presence of such a contrary-claiming party should not be forced on the defendants to "fight the newly added man" who entered the arena late and whose interests were antagonistic.
The opinion expressly declined to decide the substantive correctness of the District Munsif's findings on title — noting that those findings "may be right or may be open to challenge" — and focused its analysis on the propriety of the procedure and the transposition itself. It also addressed and distinguished the authorities relied upon by the appellant's counsel, finding them factually inapt.
Holding and Implications
The second appeal is dismissed with costs. Leave is refused.
Direct effect on the parties:
- The decree of the District Munsif in favour of the 8th defendant was rightly set aside by the Subordinate Judge and therefore does not stand.
- The 8th defendant's late transposition as a co-plaintiff and the resulting decree for possession were declared improper on procedural grounds.
The opinion does not assert or establish any broader legal principle beyond the application of Order I Rule 10 to the particular facts; it does not set out a new precedent beyond the decision on these facts.
N.R.R
A decree was passed by the District Munsif in favour of the 8th defendant who was transposed at the fag end of the trial of the suit as second plaintiff, notwithstanding the opposition of the defendants 1 to 7 on the one hand and the 1st plaintiff on the other. This decree has now been upset by the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, and the second appeal has been preferred by the 8th defendant—2nd plaintiff.
The procedure followed in the District Munsif'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 8th 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 8th defendant came on record and he set up title to the property in himself as against the plaintiff and as against the first 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 9th defendant stated that the deed under which the claim was made was a nominal transaction and that the title was with the 8th defendant himself. The 8th 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.
As stated already, after the suit had practically been heard and just before its final end, the 8th defendant filed I.A No. 1021 of 1943 on 28-8-1943 to be transposed as a plaintiff. This was stoutly opposed by the 1st defendant. Even the plaintiff who wanted the 8th defendant to come on record made a show of opposition by filing a memorandum of objections stating that the petition of the 8th 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 Munsif made up his mind to transpose the 8th 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 8th defendant was true and hence he gave in his favour a decree for possession.
It is only natural that proceedings of this kind and a decree passed on such proceedings should have come up for consideration at the hands of the appellate Court and the Subordinate Judge has in my opinion reached the proper conclusion when he said that the decree of the District Munsif in favour of the 8th defendant could not be sustained. He held that he should not have been transposed as a co-plaintiff as he was by no means interested in the title set up by the plaintiff and that he had nothing in common with him in respect of title but on the other hand pleaded that the plaintiff's title was false and that his own title was true. If a person who has the same interest as the plaintiff or a common or like interest with him does not join in the institution of the suit or is impleaded only as a defendant it would be proper for a Court to get him arrayed as co-plaintiff. But in a case of this kind where the 8th defendant was setting up title adverse to the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants 1 to 7 on the other it was wholly improper to have made him a co-plaintiff and given him a decree in addition at the penultimate stage of the trial. In saying this I am not stating anything against the title set up by the 8th defendant or the findings reached in his favour by the District Munsif. The findings may be right or may be open to challenge. Even the learned Advocate for the appellant did not seek seriously to maintain this decree but what was urged on his behalf was that the 8th defendant having been impleaded and a question of title to the property having arisen as between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 7 it was necessary for the Court to adjudicate on the title of these parties, O. 1, R. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure being wide enough to cover cases of addition of parties not only for the purpose of deciding questions involved in the suit as it was originally framed but all questions that relate to the subject matter of the suit. In support of this view three decisions were cited, namely Vanjiappa Goundan v. Annamalai Chettiar (1), Parasuram Mangacharyulu v. Parasuram Balarama Krishnamacharyulu (2) and Montgomery v. Foy Morgan and Co. (3). But in may he pointed out that they deal with different sets of facts altogether and have nothing in common with the facts of the present case. In the first case decided by Patanjali Sastri J. in Vanjiappa Goundan v. Annamalai Chettiar the second plaintiff was in the suit from the very commencement but he was added without his knowledge and the 1st plaintiff's interests were adverse to that of his own and in the circumstances the learned Judge held that it would be expedient to strike out his name as second plaintiff but as he was clearly a person whose presence before the Court was necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicated upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, he could be transposed as a defendant in the suit. In the second case, three plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that they were the hereditary archakas of a temple. Another party came up with a petition that he was also an archaka along with the three plaintiffs and that he was entitled to perform the services. The learned Judge held that it was a case in which the relief claimed rendered the presence of the new defendant necessary. The English decision relates to a case where the Court held that the shippers of the cargo who had a claim to a set off by way of damages should be before the Court to decide the plaintiff's claim, as otherwise the defendants who were only the agents would have no defence whatever to make in respect of the plaintiff's claim.
The learned Subordinate Judge rightly points out that when A and B are disputing title to a property setting up rival claims it is not open to a third party C to come on the scene and insist on his title which is contrary to that set up by A and B being investigated and it would not be right for the Court to implead him and ask the defendant to fight the newly added man who comes into the arena at his own instance or at the suggestion of a colluding plaintiff as is found in this case.
The decree of the District Munsif in favour of the 8th defendant was rightly set aside by the Subordinate Judge. This second appeal is dismissed with costs. Leave refused.
N.R.R
Alert