Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.
1. A decree was passed by the District Munsiff in favour of the 8th defendant who was transposed at the fag end of the trial of the suit as 2nd plaintiff, notwithstanding the opposition of the defendants 1 to 7 on the one hand and the 1st plaintiff on the other. This decree has now been upset by the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore and the second appeal has been preferred by the 8th defendant-2nd plaintiff.
2. The procedure followed in the District Munsiff's Court was, to say the least, extraordinary. The plaint was originally only against defendants 1 to 7. Later, the plaintiff filed a petition to implead the 8th defendant as a party on the ground that he was claiming some right in the suit properties and that he might be allowed to state his objections. This petition was allowed and the 8th defendant came on record and he set up title to the property in himself as against the plaintiff and as against the 1st defendant. He also suggested by means of a petition that the 9th defendant, one Kokilambal Ammal might be made a party to the suit so that any title that she might have to the property might be investigated. This was also ordered. The 9th defendant stated that the deed under which the claim was made was a nominal transaction and that the title was with the 8th defendant himself. The 8th defendant filed a written statement impeaching the title of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff and stating that at the instigation of the enemies the mother of the minor plaintiff had made him a party and that the plaintiff's title was false. According to him, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants 1 to 7 had any manner of right whatsoever in the suit property. He also prayed that the Court may be pleased to pass a decree declaring that the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit property and, directing that he be transposed as the 2nd plaintiff and be put in possession of the suit property.
3. As stated already, after the suit had practically been heard and just before its final end, the 8th defendant filed I.A. No. 1021 of 1943 on 28th August, 194.3, to be transposed as a plaintiff. This was stoutly opposed by the 1st defendant. Even the plaintiff who wanted the 8th defendant to come on record made a show of opposition by filing a memorandum of objections stating that the petition of the 8th defendant was frivolous and vexatious and that he cannot be transposed as a plaintiff on the benefit of the court-fees paid by himself and that he refused to have him on his side. Despite this opposition, the District Munsiff made up his mind to transpose the 8th defendant as a co-plaintiff and on the evidence he found that the plaintiff had no title but that the title set up by the 8th defendant was true and hence he gave in his favour a decree for possession.
4. It is only natural that proceedings of this kind and a decree passed on such proceedings should have come up for consideration at the hands of the appellate Court and the Subordinate Judge has in my opinion reached the proper conclusion when he said that the decree of the District Munsiff in favour of the 8th defendant could not be sustained. He held that he should not have been transposed as a co-plaintiff as he was by no means interested in the title set up by the plaintiff and that he had nothing in common with him in respect of title but on the other hand pleaded that the plaintiff's title was false and that his own title was true. If a person who has the same interest as the plaintiff or a common or like interest with him does not join in the institution of the suit or is impleaded only as a defendant it would be proper for a Court to get him arrayed as co-plaintiff. But in a case of this kind where the 8th defendant was setting up title adverse to the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants 1 to 7 on the other it was wholly improper to have made him a co-plaintiff and given him a decree in addition at the penultimate stage of the trial. In saying this I am not stating anything against the title set up by the 8th defendant or the findings reached in his favour by the District Munsiff. The findings may be right or may be open to challenge. Even the learned advocate for the appellant did not seek seriously to maintain this decree but what was urged on his behalf was that the 8th defendant having been impleaded and a question of title to the property having arisen as between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 7 it was necessary for the Court to adjudicate on the title of these parties, Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure being wide enough to cover cases of addition of parties not only for the purpose of deciding questions involved in the suit as it was originally framed but all questions that relate to the subject-matter of the suit. In support of this view three decisions were cited : namely (1) Vanjiappa Goundan v. Annamalai Chettiar : AIR1940Mad69 (2) Parasuram Mangacharyulu v. Parasuram Balarama Krishnamacharyulu : AIR1940Mad225 (3) Montgomery v. Foy Morgan & Co. (1895) 2 Q.B. 321. But it may be pointed out that they deal with different set of facts altogether and have nothing in common with the facts of the present case. In the first case decided by Patanjali Sastri, J., in Vanjiappa Goundan v. Annamalai Chettiar : AIR1940Mad69 the second plaintiff was in the suit from the very commencement but he was added without his knowledge and the 1st plaintiff's interests were adverse to that of his own and in the circumstances the learned Judge held that it would be expedient to strike out his name as second plaintiff but as he was clearly a person whose presence before the Court was necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, he could be transposed as a defendant in the suit. In the second case, three plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that they were the hereditary archakas of a temple. Another party came up with a petition that he was also an archaka along with the three plaintiffs and that he was entitled to perform the services. The learned Judge held that it was a case in which the relief claimed rendered the presence of the new defendant necessary. The English decision relates to a case where the Court held that the shippers of the cargo who had a claim to a set-off by way of damages should be before the Court to decide the plaintiff's claim, as otherwise the defendants who were only the agents would have no defence whatever to make in respect of the plaintiff's claim.
5. The learned Subordinate Judge rightly points out that when A and B are disputing title to a property setting up rival claims it is not open to a third party, C to come on the scene and insist on his title which is contrary to that set up by A and B being investigated and it would not be right for the Court to implead him and ask the defendant to fight the newly added man who comes into the arena at his own instance or at the suggestion of a colluding plaintiff as is found in this case.
6. The decree of the District Munsiff in favour of the 8th defendant was rightly set aside by the Subordinate Judge. This second appeal is dismissed with costs. Leave refused.