Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.92 seconds)Koipalli Ramiah vs Sajja Subbiah And Ors. on 30 November, 1911
This passage was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in
the case above cited. There could therefore be no bar that in a
case where the contract was in favour of more than one person
and if some of them are not willing to join as plaintiffs, the others
could file a suit impleading those who are not willing as
defendants and a person cannot be prevented from filing a suit
merely because he is only a joint promisee and the other
promisees have refused to join him in filing the suit. The main
basis of the judgments in Safjur Rahmin v. Maharamunnissa Bibi
ILR(1897) and Koripalli Ramiah v. Sajja Subbiah 1912 MWN 415
is therefore no longer available.
Section 185 in The Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Abdul Shaker Sahib vs Abdul Rahiman Sahib And Anr. on 1 November, 1922
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/02/2024 at 22:07:10
MWN 995 Abdul Shakur Sahib v. Abdul Rahiman Sahib ILR
(1923) Mad 148:MANU/TN/0139/1922: AIR 1923 Mad 1923 have
dissented from the decision in Koripalli Ramiah v. Sajja Subbiah
1912 MWN 415 and held that one of the joint promisees could file
a suit impleading the others who are not willing to join them, as
defendants in the suit.
Ponnuswami Gounder vs Rama Boyan And Ors. on 24 April, 1978
12.In Ponnuswami Gounder (Supra), High Court of Madras inter alia
held has under;
1