A party cannot be transposed as a plaintiff if their suit, even if filed on the date on which the original plaintiff instituted the suit, would have been prima facie barred by time.

1. This is a petition by the contesting defendant challenging the correctness and validity of the order of the trial Court dated 15.06.1976, whereby two sets of applications filed by two different sets of non-contesting defendants for being transposed as plaintiffs have been allowed. I will also dispose of by this order Civil Misc. No. 1996-C.II-1971 filed by the plaintiff-respondent wherein he has prayed for his application for withdrawal of the suit submitted in the trial Court being treated as withdrawn and his being permitted to prosecute the original suit in the Court below for his own benefit as well as for the benefit of the entire body of reversioners including the two sets of defendants who have been allowed to be transposed as plaintiffs.

2. In order to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel in support of and against the revision, it is necessary to briefly survey the relevant facts of the case. One Roopa was the common ancestor of the parties. He had four sons, namely, Sadda, Raju, Dallu and Hanwanta. We are concerned in this litigation with the estate of Sadda. He left behind him his widow Devo and son Balu who was married to Mst. Hiran Balu and Hiran have left behind only one daughter, i.e., Sona defendant No. 18. The grandsons of Raju and Hanwanta are defendants to the suit. Out of the heirs of Dallu, Nathu is the plaintiff and his own grandson and other great-grandson are defendants to this suit.

3. After the death of Sadda and Balu, the latter s widow Hiran adopted Puran defendant No. 1 (since deceased and now represented by the present petitioners) as son to her deceased husband by a registered adoption deed dated 16.09.1930. The adoption was questioned in a suit filed by Asa son of Raju, grandson of Roopa. All the grandsons of Dallu, i.e., Mana s heirs were impleaded as defendants to the suit. On 8.02.1932, a compromise was effected in the suit between all the parties thereto whereby two-thirds share in the estate of Hiran went to the adopted son and one-third to Raju s son Asa. All the heirs of Mana including defendants Nos. 10, 11 and 15 to 19 (or their predecessors as the case may be) agreed to the compromise decree. Hiran died on 5.03.1952. In October, 1952, mutation of two-thirds share of Hirans estate was effected in favour of the adopted son Puran. The possession of the remaining one-third share in Hiran s estate (subject to a little diminution effected by a compromise) was obtained by Asa by filing a suit. The other part of the estate of Sadda which had till then remained in the hands of his widow Devo was gifted by her in December, 1954, to her adopted grandson Puran. In order to keep up the chronological history of facts, it may be mentioned at this stage that Puran had filed a suit in a Court at Hissar against Bajrang and others for possession of one-half share in a particular piece of land which does not form the subject-matter of the present litigation. He had based the claim on the adoption. The trial Court by its judgment dated 29.02.1960, dismissed the suit of Puran. The appeal preferred by Puran was dismissed by the judgment and decree of the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers), Hissar, dated 23.01.1961. It was in the above-mentioned circumstances that on 23.01.1973, Nathu (grandson of Mana and great-grandson of Dallu), who was a minor at that time, filed the present suit for possession of the entire estate of Sadda by questioning the mutation of October, 1952 in favour of Puran and also the gift made by Devo in his favour in December, 1954, on the ground that, neither the adoption nor the alienation was binding on his reversionary interest.

4. During the pendency of the suit, Nathu plaintiff and Puran defendant arrived at an amicable settlement and filed a written compromise in the trial Court on 25.10.1875. On the same day Birbal (the grandson of Dallu) defendant No. 11 in the suit and Ieedan (grandson of Dallu) defendant No. 5, file