Defendants in a representative suit over trusteeship of a trust sought transposition as plaintiffs, claiming the reliefs were in their favour. The court held transposition would materially alter the plaint's party frame and relief structure and refused the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.No.629 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
A No. 629 of 2026
..Applicant(s)
Vs
1/6
A.No.629 of 2026
Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Ch 17
2/6
A.No.629 of 2026
15.Phool Chand
O.No.37, Naryana Mudali St., George Town, Ch 79
16.Muvana Bai
W/o Phool Chand Jain O.No.78, Naryana Mudali St., George Town, Ch 79
..Respondent(s)
To transpose the defendants 11 and 12 as Plaintiffs 4 and 5 in C.S.No.538 of 2007.
For Applicant(s): MR.S. Sathya Ganesh
For Respondent(s):
ORDER
This application has been filed by defendants 11 and 12 to transpose them as plaintiffs in the suit. In the common affidavit, the applicants state that they are the sons of the first plaintiff, that though they were arrayed as defendants, the suit itself seeks a declaration in their favour that they, as surviving direct male lineal descendants of the founder, are entitled to hold the office of President in the 1st defendant Trust, and that they were under the impression that they were only pro forma defendants and that the reliefs were also sought for their benefit.
2.The applicants state that the contesting defendants are defendants 1 to 10 and 13 to 16 and that the defendants 1 to 10 are also no longer contesting the 3/6
A.No.629 of 2026 matter. They further state that they had engaged counsel, but were set ex parte on 28.01.2016 for non-filing of written statement; that after the death of the first plaintiff on 29.07.2020 and on discussing the stage of the suit, they realised the need to come on record properly; and that they now seek to support the reliefs already prayed for in the suit.
3.This Court is unable to accept the said request. The suit has been instituted in a particular representative and substantive frame, and the reliefs in the plaint stand structured accordingly. The leave granted to institute the suit must necessarily be understood with reference to that very frame of parties and reliefs. If defendants 11 and 12 are now transposed as plaintiffs, the nature and complexion of the suit, as well as the relief structure in the plaint, would stand materially altered. Such alteration cannot be brought about indirectly by way of an application for transposition.
4.Transposition may be ordered where it is necessary for complete adjudication and where the existing cause of action and reliefs remain substantially unaltered. In the present case, however, the proposed transposition is not merely formal or consequential. It would change the basis on which the suit has proceeded and, in effect, permit recasting of the plaint without a proper amendment and
4/6
A.No.629 of 2026
without preserving the original basis on which leave to sue was granted. That
course is impermissible.
01-04-2026
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nvi/ay
5/6
A.No.629 of 2026
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
NVi/AY
A No. 629 of 2026
01-04-2026
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether defendants 11 and 12, sons of the first plaintiff, could be transposed as plaintiffs in the representative suit without altering its frame and relief structure.
P.K.S.Prashath Alias P.Saiprasad
P.J.K.Sairam alias P.Sairam
P.Jayalakshmi (deceased) rep. by S.Saiprabha
Sailakshmi Ramji
Pasumarthy Cunniah Chettys Trust
Chinna Reddy Govindamma @ Vijayalakshmi
A.D.Maria Clete
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
