The main legal point established in the judgment is that after transposition of defendants as additional plaintiffs in a suit without the consent of the original plaintiffs, the original plaintiff ceases to be a party to the suit, leading to an implied abandonment of the suit.

A suit for partition, after the appearance of the defendants and the submission of written statement raising a counter claim, was not proceeded with by the original plaintiffs. Consequently, the trial court allowed the first and second defendants to transpose as additional plaintiffs and to proceed with the suit. The suit ended in a preliminary decree for partition. It was taken up in appeal by the original plaintiff on the ground that a decree was granted against him without affording a right of hearing. But the First Appellate Court repelled his contentions and dismissed the appeal by upholding the preliminary decree granted. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the original plaintiff came up with this appeal. During the pendency, original plaintiff passed away, legal heirs were impleaded and proceeded with the appeal.

2. The first and second defendants were permitted to transpose as additional plaintiffs after raising a counter claim in the suit. The trial court granted a preliminary decree for partition of plaint schedule and counter claim B schedule property by allowing the plaint claim and the counter claim.

3. The original plaintiff in the suit had claimed exclusive title over counter claim B schedule property based on a purchase certificate. Counter claim was raised by the first and second defendants claiming co-ownership right over the said property, left out by their deceased father Kunjan alleging that he had obtained the same on the demise of his brother, Velayudhan. In short, the trial court and the First Appellate Court granted a decree for partition of plaint schedule property as well as counter claim schedule property without considering whether it is permissible to have divergent interest between the original plaintiffs and the transposed plaintiffs and the impact of transposition of some of the defendants without the consent of the original plaintiffs. But the decree is seen passed against the original plaintiffs also. It was taken up in appeal by the original plaintiffs, but failed. Hence this second appeal.

4. The questions came up for consideration are :-

(1) Under what circumstances transposition of defendant or some of the defendants can be permitted ?

(2) Is it permissible to have divergent and conflicting interest between the plaintiffs in a suit, if so, to what extent ?

(3) What would the legal consequences of a counter claim raised by the defendant or some of the defendants, after their transposition as co-plaintiffs ? Whether it would form part of plaint claim after transposition, if not, whether it is permissible for the transposed plaintiff to proceed with the plaint pleading and the relief sought thereunder along with the counter claim and the pleading raised in the written statement simultaneously or whether it would be treated as two different suits for all purposes, if so, what would be the legal consequence of conflicting interest between the plaint claim and the counter claim under the written statement submitted by the transposed plaintiff ?

(4) Whether it is legally permissible to effect transposition of a defendant who had raised a counter claim in the suit and whether it will result in conflicting interest between the plaintiffs ?

(5) Under what circumstance, a transposition of a defendant, who had raised a counter claim in the suit, can be allowed ?

(6) What would be the legal status of the original plaintiff after transposition of some of the defendants, if it was done without the consent of original plaintiffs ?

5. In a suit, there cannot be conflicting interest between the plaintiffs, though there can be conflicting interest between the defendants. There is no provision for resolving conflicting interest between the plaintiffs in a suit and there cannot be any adjudication of any conflicting interest between the plaintiffs. But there can be conflicting interest between the defendants and it is permissible to adjudicate the conflicting interest between the defendants, if it is f