Joinder of possession and partition claims was impermissible where the partition relief fell outside Order II Rule 4 CPC exceptions.

A suit for recovery of possession of one immovable property cannot, without leave of the court, be joined with a partition claim relating to another property unless the claim falls within the limited exceptions in Order II Rule 4 CPC. The court held that although Order II Rule 3 allows joinder of causes of action, the exception in Order II Rule 4 barred the combined pleading here because the partition relief did not fit the specified exceptions. The two claims would also cause inconvenience and embarrassment in trial, as they involved different issues and stages. The misjoinder objection was therefore upheld, and the plaint had to be curtailed to exclude the partition claim, leaving the parties free to pursue a separate partition suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the joinder of a possession claim in respect of one property with a partition claim in respect of another property in the same suit was permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether the plaint was liable to be struck out for misjoinder of causes of action.

Analysis: The suit combined two distinct causes of action against the common defendant: recovery of possession of the A schedule property and partition of the B schedule property. While Order II Rule 3 permits joinder of causes of action, Order II Rule 4 operates as an exception in a suit for recovery of immovable property and bars joinder of other causes of action unless they fall within the specified exceptions or leave of the Court is obtained. The partition relief did not fall within any of those exceptions. The Court also found that the two claims would lead to inconvenience and embarrassment in trial because the eviction matter and the partition matter would proceed on different issues and at different stages.

Conclusion: The joinder was impermissible, the objection to misjoinder ought to have been allowed, and the impugned order rejecting that objection was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs were required to elect between the causes of action, failing which the plaint could be curtailed so as to exclude the partition claim, with liberty to pursue a separate suit for partition.

Ratio Decidendi: A partition claim cannot be joined, without leave of the Court, in a suit principally for recovery of possession of immovable property unless it falls within the limited exceptions in Order II Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---