The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of O. XXII R.10 and S.146 of the Code of Civil Procedure in allowing the impleadment of a counter-petitioner based on a settlement deed.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise from an order impleading the counter-petitioner in the two Revision Petitions in place of the deceased plaintiff and refusing to implead the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 37 as the plaintiff's legal representatives. The suit was by one Marthanda Pillai for cancellation of a gift deed executed by him. He died on 8.11.1954 and the counter-petitioner applied by C.M.P. No.316 dated 17.1.1955 to be brought on record as additional plaintiff on the strength of a settlement deed executed by Marthanda Pillai on 13.3.1954. The petitioners in C.R.P. 37 also made an application C.M.P. 1319 of 1955. They claimed to be the heirs and legal representatives of Marthanda Pillai. The defendant filed objections to both the applications. C.M.P. No. 316 was allowed while C.M.P. No. 1319 of 1955 was dismissed. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 37 is filed by the applicants in C.M.P. No. 1319. The two revision petitions were heard together.

2. Although the only objection taken in the court below was that the settlement deed relied on by the counter petitioner was vitiated by fraud, learned counsel for the defendant raised a point regarding the competence of the counter-petitioner to get himself impleaded in place of the original plaintiff. His contention is that the counter-petitioner being a transferee of Marthanda Pillai is not entitled to come in as legal representative under O. XXII R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The specific provision of law under which C.M.P. No. 316 was filed was not stated in the application but it is clear from the affidavit accompanying the same that the counter-petitioner sought to get himself impleaded as assignee of Marthanda Pillai and that his application was one under O. XXII R.10 of the Code. O. XXII, R.3 cannot apply to the case of a transferee from the original plaintiff as the right does not devolve on him by reason of the death of the plaintiff. The real question for decision is whether the counter-petitioner is entitled to be impleaded under O. XXII, R.10 on the strength of the settlement deed executed by the original plaintiff. Reliance was placed by the defendant on the decision of the Patna High Court in Gobardhan v. Saligram (AIR 1936 Pat. 123). This decision cannot be of any help in deciding this case as the points which were decided are entirely different. One Matangini died after instituting a suit informa pauperis. After her death, one Gobardhan filed an application stating that he had acquired from Matangini before her death a lease of the properties involved in the suit for a term of 99 years and that he should be impleaded in her place. This application was dismissed on the ground that Matangini had only a limited interest in the properties. This order was allowed to become final. Thereafter he filed another application for getting himself impleaded on the strength of a deed obtained from Priyasakhi, daughter of Matangini. He also prayed in that application that Priyasakhi should also be impleaded. This application was also dismissed and the matter went up in revision before the High Court. It was urged by Gobardhan that he was entitled to come in under O. XXII, R.3 read with S.146 or under O. XXII, R.10, either as representative of the original plaintiff or of her daughter. The decision was that he could not come in under O. XXII R.3 as the right claimed by him did not accrue to him on the death of Matangini and that he was not therefore a legal representative. O. XXII, R.10 was also held not to apply, as Priyasakhi from whom he obtained a deed was not a party to the suit as provided in that rule. As regards the prayer to get himself impleaded as transferee of Matangini, the same was refused on the ground that the earlier application on that basis was dismissed and that the order had become final. It will thus be seen that the question whether a transferee from the plaintiff is entitled to get himself impleaded under O. XXII R.10 after the plaintiff's de