ORDER

The plaintiffs in OS No.107 of 2016 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Magadi, is impugning the order dated 30.05.2017 passed on IA. No.5 filed under Order I Rule 10(6) read with Section 151 of CPC filed by defendant No.1 -

respondent to transpose himself as one of the plaintiff.

2. Heard Sri. Viswanath Sabarad, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri. Bhuvan K P, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the respondents are relatives. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. The plaintiffs made specific allegations against defendant No.1, who is the brother of plaintiffs that defendant No.1 executed gift deed in favour his son who is arrayed as defendant No.2 on 21.09.2015 by colluding with one another to deprive the right of the plaintiffs. Instead of filing written statement, defendant No.1 filed IA.No.5 seeking to transpose him as one of the plaintiff. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court under the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the plaintiffs have made allegations against defendant No. 1 and his son - defendant No.2, the Trial Court could not have allowed the application compelling the plaintiffs to transpose defendant No.1 as one of the plaintiff . Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order, in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the petition submitted since the plaintiffs are colluding with defendant Nos.3 and 4, i.e., the mother and sister of plaintiffs and defendant No.1, there was an apprehension that they may drag on the matter or deny the right of defendant No.1. Therefore, to prosecute the suit in accordance with law, defendant No.1 sought for his transposition as one of the plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court was right in allowing the application. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. The admitted facts are that, the plaintiffs and defendants are related to one another. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the family properties. Defendant No.1 is the brother of the plaintiffs. He appeared before the Court, but has not filed any written statement, but filed IA. No.5 under Order I Rule 10(6) of CPC praying to transpose himself as one of the plaintiff.

7. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs, and in spite of that, the same was allowed, which is impugned in the present petition.

8. I have gone through the pleadings pleaded in the plaint, where the plaintiffs have made specific allegation against defendant No.1 that behind the back of plaintiffs, defendant No.1 created a document styled as gift deed dated 21.09.2015 and registered the same in favour of his son defendant No.2. It is only to deny the legitimate claim of the plaintiffs over the schedule properties. It is sated that dependant No.1 has no right whatsoever to bequeath the property in favour of his son - defendant No.2 by executing the gift deed. When such allegations are made against defendant Nos.1 and 2 by the plaintiffs in the plaint, defendant No.1 could not have been permitted to transpose himself as one of the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiffs are the dominus litis who are the masters of their case and they can consider as to with whom they can join hands in filing or prosecuting the suit. Furthermore, the suit is one for partition and separate possession. Even the defendants in a suit for partition and possession would be in the position of a plaintiff as they could have claimed their share in the said property by paying the required Court fee. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by defendant No.1 - respondent. The Trial Court committed an error in allowing IA. No.5 and permitting defendant No.1 to transpose himself as one of the plaintiff. When there is