The court emphasized the importance of properly framing suits to prevent further litigation and the right to trial on merits.

Padhye, J—This revision by the plaintiffs (hereinafter called applicants) arises out of an order passed by the Court of the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Daryapur, holding their suit as framed was multifarious, involving misjoinder of defendants and causes of action and requiring them either to elect or to withdraw the suit. The lower Court also observed that the plaintiffs have no right to claim pre-emption until the sale of the property in question by their father is set aside.

2. On 29-7-1943, Wamanrao, father of the plaintiffs, transferred by sale entire land in subdivision No. 10/2 (a) in favour of Deorao, the father of the present non-applicant 1, Ganesh, for Rs. 300. Deorao, in his turn, sold away the same in favour of non-applicants 2 and 4, viz. Bajirao and Namdeo. Non-applicant 3 Hari-bhau was jointed in the suit only on the ground that he claimed to pre-empt the property sold. and that his suit for pre-emption (civil Suit No. 324A of 1943) was pending.

3. The plaintiffs contended that the property in suit was their joint family property, acquired by their father, Wamanrao, on 29-12-1942 out of joint family nucleus in his hands and the sale of property by Wamanrao was not binding on them for want of legal necessity. They also 'Contended that the consideration of Rs. 500 was inadequate. The plaintiffs claimed that they, as sons of the vendor, Wamanrao, have a preferential right to pre empty and that they be allowed to pre-empt for Rs. 500, which amount they were willing to pay to the vendee. They further claimed in the alternative that in the vent of their being not allowed to pre-empt, the call be held not binding on them and they should be put in possession of the property either on pre-emption or on declaration as stated above.

4. The plaintiffs' claim was denied by all the defendants (non-applicants) but the only plea that is relevant for this revision is contained in the written statement of defendant 3 in these words:

The sale deed dated 29-7-43 stands till it is set aside by a properly instituted suit. No suit for pre-emption lies till then. The relief of setting aside the sale or the possession on the ground of absence of legal necessity and the claim of pre-emption cannot be claimed in this suit. There is a misjoinder of causes of action and defendants.

This objection was accepted by the lower Court and the plaintiffs were ordered either to elect or withdraw the suit and this is the order sought to be revised.

4. In Rajaram Tiwari v. Luchman Pershbad,1967 8 WR 15. Sir Barnes Peacock, C.J. observed:

Such a joinder in one suit of distinct causes of action against different defendants, each of whom is unconnected with the cause of action against the other, complicates the case before the Judge, and renders it exceedingly difficult for him in dealing with the case of each defendant to exclude from his consideration those portions of the evidence which may not be admissible against him, though admissible against one or more of the others. Moreover, it is vexatious and harassing to the different defendants.

This is the basic principle why suits involving misjoinder of causes of action and parties are regarded bad and the plaintiff is required to elect.

5. The learned Counsel for the' applicants contended that what the plaintiffs claim in the present suit is possession of property and the cause of action for this relief is furnished by the fact that the property is the joint family property in which the plaintiffs have vested interest and that this property has been sold away by their father without legal necessity.

6. Under Hindu law, the plaintiffs are entitled on proof of these facts to the restoration of possession as held in Mohanlal v. Tedchand,2010 9 NLR 18 and subsequent Case following it. Under the provision's of the Berar Landlile Venue Code they are entitled to pre-empt preferentially, as on account of their status as coparceners, they are in the position of co-occupants. I notice that the plaintiffs have claimed i