1. The issue in this petition is as to whether the Court below was justified in proceedings with the trial of the suit which according to the petitioners contained pleas which should have been challenged by filing separate suits. In a nutshell the argument raised is that there is misjoinder of cause of action and also parties. With a view, to sustain his claim, following factual submissions have been made.

2. One Ramsewak, father of the plaintiffs sold different pieces of agricultural land on different occasions to different persons. The date on which sales have been made and the persons to whom these sales were made are noticed below:

Date of Sale Deed To whom Sale Deed was Executed

26.3.1986 Defendant No. 1

26.10.1985 Defendant No.2

10.7.1986 Defendant No.3

26.6.1986 Defendant No.4& 5

27.6.1986 Defendant No.7 & 8

27.6.1986 Three Sale Deeds infavour of defendant No.9, 10 and 11 by 3 Separate Sale Deeds.

27.6.1986

16.6.1987 Defendants No. 12 and 13

8.10.1987

All these sales are being challenged by filing a composite suit. To the adoption of this course, an objection has been taken. This objection is to the effect that sale deeds pertains to different portions of land and these sales were made to different persons. These transactions according to the petitioner should be challenged by filing a separate suit.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Kanhaiyalal v. Keshodas, 1960 JLJ SN 171 = AIR 1961 MP 46. In the above case, it was observed that two conditions must be satisfied before two or more defendants can be joined in the same suit. These conditions were indicated as under:

(i) a right to relief against them arises in respect of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions; and

(ii) if separate suits were instituted against the defendants any common question of law or fact would arise.

After making the afore-mentioner observations it was further observed that both the conditions must exist together and there must be nexus or common link. It would be apt to notice what was said in paras 5 and 6 of the judgment. These read as under:

"Both these conditions must exist together. There must be some nexus or common link. This condition is not fulfilled if the case against each defendant is entirely distinct and separate in its subject matter from that of the other defendants. If no connection or conspiracy is alleged to exist between the various persons joined as defendants, the suit will be bad for multifarious ness. Otherwise, if a common suit is permitted against two or more defendants when there is no nexus inter se, it will only lead to obscurity and confusion. The policy of the law embodied in these rules is that on the one hand, needless multiplicity of suits should be avoided but, on the other hand, the trial of a suit should not be embarrassed. The expression "common question of law or fact", docs not mean "same or similar" question of law or fact. The distinction is real. See: Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, 1972 IInd App, 148; (AIR 1945 PC 118), and Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, (1955)1 SCR 1083; (S) AIR 1955 SC 216).

In the present case, the cause' of action against both the defendants are quite different. One defendant has nothing do with the case against the order. Shri Gupta relies on Purshottam Amrit v. Bhagwansao Tikaramsao, AIR 1938 Nag. 461, Pyarchand v. Narayan, MBLJ 1954 HCR 1233, Mahmomed Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Khan AIR 1949 PC 78. Not one of these cases applies here. The facts were quite different. Suits relating to transactions entered into. by a manager of a Hindu Joint family or a Hindu widow, stand on a quite different footing" .

4. Reliance has also been placed on Bhaiyalal Baliram Teli v. Ramchandra Hemraj Mahesri and another AIR 1937 Nagpur 99. In the above case, there were two mortgages of same property. These were sought to be challenged by filing a single suit. It was observed that mortgagee canno