In a partition suit, all parties are considered plaintiffs, and a co-defendant cannot challenge the transposition of another defendant unless they demonstrate a direct grievance.

ORAL ORDER

1. Defendant No.13 has filed this petition questioning the order passed on I.A. No.21, whereby the application filed by defendant No.10 to transpose her as plaintiff No.3 has been allowed by the Trial Court.

2. It is the case of the petitioner—defendant No.13 that defendant No.10 could not have filed an application to transpose herself as plaintiff No.3, in view of the memo that she had filed adopting the defence of the other defendants who were opposing the plea of partition by the plaintiffs.

3. It is contented that since defendant No.10 had adopted the defence of the other defendants, in which they had stated that the prayer for partition was not maintainable and that there was an earlier partition, she cannot thereafter be permitted to seek a share by transposing herself as a plaintiff.

4. In other words, it is contended that defendant No.10 is approbating and reprobating insofar as the prayer for partition is concerned and hence, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed I.A. No.21.

5. The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.10, on the other hand, contends that with the suit being one for partition, the defendant in such a suit would also be entitled to seek transposition, since, fundamentally, in a suit for partition, all the parties are plaintiffs and if the suit for partition is ultimately decreed, every person entitled to a share will be granted a share.

6. It is also sought to be contended that defendant No.10, who had filed a memo adopting the defence of the other defendants, has subsequently filed a memo disowning the earlier memo and contending that the earlier memo had been filed without her instructions or her signature and therefore, that particular defence of defendant No.13 would be of no consequence.

7. It is to be stated at the outset that a co-defendant, especially a subsequent purchaser such as the petitioner, would have no right to question an order by which defendant No.10 was being transposed as plaintiff No.3. If at all anyone was aggrieved by the transposition of defendant No.10, it would only be the plaintiffs.

8. In this case, it appears that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had, in fact, stated that they had no objection for the transposition of defendant No.10 as plaintiff No.3. In this view of the matter, defendant No.13 would have no local standi to question the transposition.

9. It is, however, to be stated here that if defendant No.13 is of the view that defendant No.10 had taken up a plea opposing the partition, obviously, defendant No.13 can putforth such a plea and establish his contention, but that cannot be a ground to permit him to challenge the order of transposition.

10. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

11. It is, however, made clear that it would be open for defendant No.13, i.e., the petitioner, to establish that defendant No.10 had opposed the prayer for partition and had actually conceded that there was an earlier settlement and a partition.