S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in these petitions have called in question the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and C. J. M. , Haveri (for short, "trial Court"), on LA. Nos. 6 and 7 in O. S. No. 113 of 2000, dated 6-12-2003, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the said applications for transposing the respondent 3 (defendant 7 in the Trial Court) as co-plaintiff and for amendment of the plaint.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent is the plaintiff, the petitioners are defendants 1 to 5 and respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 6 and 7 in the said suit. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to in their respective ranks before the Trial Court.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration that the registered sale deed executed by the 6th defendant in favour of the husband of the petitioner 1 and father of petitioners 2 to 5 as null and void and for permanent injunction. In the plaint it is contended that the husband of the plaintiff and father of the 7th defendant are brothers and that her husband died in the year 1968 leaving behind her as the sole heir. Likewise, father of the 7th defendant died in the year 1987 leaving behind 7th defendant as his heir and legal representative. It is alleged that the 6th created a power of attorney dated 15-4-1993 in his favour. Thereafter, he has executed a sale deed in respect of her share in the suit schedule property in favour of the husband of respondent 1 and father of respondents 2 to 5.

( 4 ) THE 7th defendant has filed LA. No. 6 for transposing himself as additional plaintiff and I A No. 7 for amendment of the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of LA. No. 7, it is contended that the husband of the plaintiff and his father are brothers and that himself and plaintiff are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. It is further contended that the 6th defendant being a close relative of the plaintiff has played fraud and misrepresentation on the plaintiff and obtained false and concocted power of attorney from her and sold the properties to the husband of defendant 1 and father of defendants 2 to 5. That after coming to know all the facts the plaintiff has filed the present suit challenging the alleged sale deed executed by defendant 6 in favour of the husband of defendant 1 and father of defendants 2 to 5. It is further contended that he has filed a suit O. S. No. 576 of 1994 on the ground that he is in possession of the entire property and that the said suit was compromised by the plaintiff and himself and that in the light of the compromise decree he has got right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. Therefore, he has filed an application for transposing himself as plaintiff and for consequential amendment.

( 5 ) THE said application was resisted by the defendants 1 to 6. It is contended that the 7th defendant is a stranger to the property in question and that he has no right, title or interest over the said property. It is further contended that when the plaintiff herself has no right, title and interest in the property in question, the defendant 7 cannot be transposed as additional plaintiff and continue the said suit.

( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners (defendants 1 to 5) submits that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the property. The cause of action pleaded was execution of the sale deed said to have been executed by the 6th defendant in favour of the husband of the defendant and father of defendants 2 to 5. It is further contended that in the application the 7th defendant contends that he is in joint possession of the property along with the plaintiff. He again states that having regard to the compromise decree in O'. S. No. 576 of 1994, he is the absolute owner of the property. Therefore, transposing of the 7th defendant as a co-plaintiff does not arise because the suit was cancellation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document