Karnataka HC Lets Brother Named As Defendant Join Land Suit, Finding His Brothers Had Sued On His Behalf

The petitioner was defendant No. 4 in O.S. No. 144/2011, a suit brought by his brothers for declaration and consequential injunction.

He filed a written statement supporting the plaintiffs and also sought a counterclaim.

He later applied under Order I Rule 10(6) of the CPC to be transposed as plaintiff No. 3; the Trial Court rejected the application as belated.

In the writ petition, the plaintiffs supported transposition and stated that they had no conflict of interest with the petitioner.

The plaint alleged that the suit was brought for the benefit of the petitioner as well as the plaintiffs.

The application was made under Order I Rule 10(6) of the CPC, which the petitioner invoked to seek transposition from the array of defendants to that of plaintiffs.

The petitioner also relied on Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel and Another, arising out of SLP No. 5635/2023, as the reason for seeking transposition as a matter of abundant caution.

The Court did not set out or apply a distinct legal test from that precedent; it determined the application by reference to the plaint’s averments and the parties’ submissions.

The Court found that paragraph 5 of the plaint showed the suit had been brought for the plaintiffs and the petitioner, and that its outcome would benefit the petitioner.

The plaintiffs did not oppose transposition, and both their counsel and the petitioner’s counsel considered it advisable to avoid future disputes between them.

In those circumstances, the Court considered formal transposition appropriate despite the Trial Court’s rejection on the ground of delay.

The petitioner was permitted to be transposed as plaintiff No. 3.

The Court directed that he neither plead nor lead separate evidence, since the plaintiffs’ pleadings and evidence were stated to be on his behalf as well.