JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P12 order of the learned Family Court, Ottappalam, qua the directions in I.A.No.1/2025 in O.P.No.184/2018.

2. Compendiously, the Original Petition was initially filed by the petitioner (wife) against the 2^nd respondent (husband), seeking cancellation of two documents; in which, the 1^st respondent impleaded himself asserting that he is the successor in interest of the petitioner in the property covered by it. It transpires that the petitioner, thereupon, withdrew the Original Petition and the 1^st respondent filed I.A.No.1/2025 to transpose himself in her place, so as to prosecute the Original Petition. This has been allowed by the learned Family Court and the petitioner challenges the same as being illegal and unlawful.

3. Sri.Mohana Kannan – learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, submitted that the learned Family Court has committed no wrong because, the right of his client to sue the petitioner, as also the 2^nd respondent, survives because he is a person who had purchased the property in question from the assignee of the petitioner. He argued that, therefore, the learned Family Court cannot be held to have committed any