Court directs petitioner to be transposed as defendant to resolve conflicting interests, ensuring fair resolution.

The court held that while the joinder of the petitioner as a plaintiff was not improper, due to the conflicting interests, it was necessary to strike out his name from the suit. However, recognizing the importance of his presence for a complete adjudication, the court directed the petitioner to be transposed as a defendant. Emphasizing the need to settle all disputes related to the subject matter, the court interpreted broadly the term "questions involved in the suit." This decision aimed to prevent the nullification of the petitioner's rights and ensure a fair and comprehensive resolution of the case, with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
Joinder of petitioner as second plaintiff, Proper party in the suit, Right to relief, Transposition of petitioner as defendant, Interpretation of "questions involved in the suit," Effect of court order on petitioner's rights.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a Revision Petition against the refusal of the Court to strike out the petitioner's name from the plaint. The petitioner, the second plaintiff, sold a village to the first plaintiff, which was charged with the payment of an annuity along with other villages owned by the defendants. The petitioner paid the entire amount due from all villages and sought contribution from other owners. Subsequently, he sold the village to the first plaintiff, including the right to recover the contribution. The petitioner alleged that the inclusion of the right in the sale-deed was fraudulent and he was unaware of being impleaded in the suit.

The main contention was whether the petitioner's joinder as a plaintiff was proper and if his name should be struck out from the suit. The petitioner argued that since no relief was sought for him in the plaint, he should not be considered a plaintiff. The first respondent opposed, claiming the petitioner's application was vexatious. The second respondent agreed to the petitioner's removal as a plaintiff if added as a defendant, emphasizing the necessity of the petitioner's presence for a complete adjudication.

The Court held that the joinder of the petitioner as a plaintiff was not improper, but considering the petitioner's claim adverse to the first respondent, it was expedient to strike out his name. However, as the petitioner's presence was essential for a complete adjudication, the Court directed the petitioner to be transposed as a defendant. The Court interpreted the term "questions involved in the suit" broadly, emphasizing the need to settle all disputes arising from one subject-matter between all interested parties.

The judgment highlighted the potential nullification of the petitioner's right if his name was struck out, preventing him from suing the defendants for recovery later. Therefore, the Court set aside the lower court's order and directed the petitioner's name to be struck out as a plaintiff and added as a defendant in the suit to ensure a fair and complete adjudication. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

---