The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strong reasons to deprive the plaintiff of the choice of forum and the consideration of the balance of convenience for both parties in deciding the transfer of the suit.

1. This is a petition for transfer of O.S. No. 45 of 1956 of the Sub-court, Ottappalam to the Sub-court, Tuticorin. The petitioners are the defendants 11 to 15 in the suit.

2. The suit was for partition of the plaintiff's one-half share as against the defendants 1 to 10 who comprised the other branch of the joint Hindu family of the parties. The plaint merely averred as the reason for the suit that the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the management of his brother's sons, the defendants 1 and 2 of the B schedule immoveables and the C schedule movables belonging to the family and entrusted to them. All the B schedule items except item 11, lay within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Courts of Tuticorin and Ramnad and the parties were also residents at Sattur. The suit could accordingly have been laid in either of these Sub-Courts but the plaint was filed in the Sub-Court at Ottapalam though properly in view to the situation of the item 11, viz., the West Coast Match Co. at that place. The plaint did not however mention the reason for the choice. It also took in only the defendants 1 to 10.

3. The defendants 1, 2 and 3 to 6 filed separate written statements in the case without disclosing much of a contest. They admitted the existence of the joint family as alleged in the plaint but pleaded ignorance as to whether B or C schedule items belonged to the family. The second defendant acknowledged the fact of his management but claimed that it was only as executor under his father's will and further that he had already effected certain alienations in respect of some of the B schedule items. These alienees being the defendants 11 to 17, were on his special motion later impleaded. It may be added that plaintiff has since applied for impleading four more alienees alleged to have been discovered by him. Sometime after their own impleading it was that the defendants 11 to 15 filed this petition

4. The affidavit exchanged between the parties to this petition disclose that the petitioners 1 to 4, viz., defendants 11 to 14 are residents of Tinnevelly District and the properties alienated to them are also in that District while the 5th petitioner, 15th defendant is a resident of Ramanathapuram District, the property mortgaged to her also being within that District. The 15th defendant has further obtained preliminary decree in O. S.57 of 1956 on the file of the Ramanathapuram Sub-Court at Madura and is taking steps for final decree therein. The distance of the place of residence of all the parties to Ottapalam is more than 200 miles. The language of all the parties is Tamil and that of the witnesses who would have to be examined is again Tamil while the language of the Sub-Court at Ottapalam is Malayalam. These facts, taken along with the frame of the plaint and the conduct of the suit so far, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners, indicate that the forum at Ottapalam was chosen in collusion between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10, with a view to defeat and delay the petitioners and other alienees as far as possible. Learned counsel says that in the interests of the fair trial of the suit and of convenience and the saving of avoidable time, labour and expense it is just and necessary to have the suit transferred as prayed for. But he left the choice of the Sub-Courts at Tuticorin or Ramanathapuram at Madura to the plaintiff.

5. The petition was strenuously contested on behalf of the plaintiff on the basis mainly that the choice of forum for instituting the suit is that of the plaintiff and he having exercised it, it was not for the defendants in the suit to say differently. No adequate ground for transfer had been alleged either. On the other hand, according to the plaintiff, he would be put to unnecessary loss and inconvenience because he has already employed competent legal adviser for the suit. The contention of the petitioners that solitary item 11 the Match Co., should not have been made the ground for choice of forum, was met by