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wherein he has prayed for his application for withdrawal of the suit submitted in the trial Court being treated as withdrawn and his being permitted to prosecute the original suit in the Court below for his own benefit as well as for the benefit of the entire body of reversioners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 H