Madras High Court
Parameswaran vs Shangaran on 16 July, 1891
Equivalent citations: (1891)ILR 14MAD489
JUDGMENT
1. It having been alleged in the plaint that defendant No. 1 refused to join the plaintiff in the suit, and that allegation having been traversed in the written statement, an issue on that point ought to have been joined and the plaintiff should have been required to prove his allegation. The defect was, as clearly appears from the order of remand, intended to be cured by the District Judge by remitting for trial the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled to sue. The District Munsif, however, does not seem to have understood the object with which the issue was directed. But it was admitted before the Judge that there was no discussion between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 as to whether it was advisable to institute the suit and whether defendant No. 1 was prepared to join.
2. As co-uralan he was entitled to be consulted and to be joined as a plaintiff. It is now argued that in the circumstances of the case defendant No. 1 was not entitled to be consulted, as he had all along asserted an exclusive right to sue, relying on the razee in the previous suit. There is no evidence to show that defendant No. 1 had at any time repudiated the plaintiff's authority to sue in conjunction with himself. It must be observed that the suit was merely a suit in ejectment and that there was no prayer for the setting aside of the razee. We cannot say, therefore, the District Judge was wrong in dismissing the suit on the ground that the first defendant was not joined as plaintiff and was not consulted beforehand.
3. We must dismiss the appeal with costs.