This petition arises out of a suit for partition instituted by the plaintiff. The correctness of the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge under issue No. 15, which was taken up for preliminary adjudication has been challenged in revision by the plaintiff. Issue No. 16 was also decided, and against that decision C. R. P. No. 1735 of 1947 was filed by the fourth defendant, but that petition was not pressed and was eventually dismissed.

In the suit for partition that the plaintiff instituted, he impleaded his brothers, defendants 5 and 6, his father the first defendant, and his mother, the second defendant. Besides, the third defendant, the daughter of the family, and the fourth defendant, her husband, were also made party defendants.

Two items of property in which the plaintiff claimed a share were leases, one the lease of certain properties in Thiruvaduthurai and the other a lease of certain other properties in Narasingampettai village both in Tanjore District.

The plaintiff’s case with reference to the Thiruvaduthurai lease was set out in paragraph 15 of the plaint. The lease itself admittedly stood in the name of the fourth defendant. The plaintiff’s case was that the first defendant had a third share in this lease for which he paid Rs. 6,000 to the fourth defendant even before the lease was taken by the fourth defendant:

"so far as the first defendant’s share is concerned, the fourth defendant is only a benamidar."

Defendants 4 and 1 in the statements that they filed admitted that the first defendant had originally advanced a sum of Rs. 6,000 to the fourth defendant with a request that the fourth defendant should assign to the first defendant a third share in the lease if the fourth defendant got it. The fourth defendant pleaded further that he eventually decided not to give any share in that lease to the first defendant, and that he returned this amount of Rs. 6,000 to the first defendant.

The plaintiff’s case with reference to the Narasingampettai lease was set out in paragraph 14 of the plaint. The lease deed stood in the name of the fourth defendant and one K. S. Chidambaram Iyer who was not a party to the suit. That a half share in this lease belonged to this Chidambaram Iyer was common ground. The plaintiff’s case was that the other half share belonged to the family of the first defendant and his son.

"The lease deed of Narasingampettai stands in the name of the fourth defendant who has no interest in the lease and is only a benamidar for the family of plaintiff and defendants 1, 5 and 6."

Dealing with the plea of the first defendant and the fourth defendant that the first defendant had given up his interest in the lease after obtaining a sum of Rs. 4,000 from the fourth defendant, the plaintiff averred:

"the whole story is false and has been invented to defraud him and defendants 5 and 6 after he sent notices to defendants 1 to 4 demanding partition."

The answer to these allegations was in paragraphs 8,9 and 10 of the written statement filed by the fourth defendant. He contended that the original acquisition of a half share in the lease, excluding Chidambaram Iyer’s half share, was for the fourth defendant alone, and that subsequently, at the request of the first defendant, he assigned his half share to the first defendant. Again, when the first defendant expressed his inability to manage that property, the fourth defendant took it back and paid the first defendant a sum of Rs. 4,000.

It was principally on the fourth defendant’s contention that issue No. 15:

"whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action?"

was framed. The learned Subordinate Judge held that, with the claims against the fourth defendant as they stood, the suit, which was primarily one for partition, was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The learned Subordinate Judge called upon the plaintiff to elect against which defendant or defendants he would proceed with his suit and to amend the plaint suitably. It is