Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Dattatraya Govind Shaligram vs Gopal Sakharam Pandhare on 5 December, 1930 cites

C.S. Govindaraja Mudaliar, Receiver, ... vs Alagappa Thambiran And Ors. on 24 March, 1926

7, which was referred to, at any rate without disapproval, in Govindaraja Mudaliar v. Alagappa Thambiran. It is unnecessary to consider that question in view of the fact that the allegation in the plaint here is that defendants Nos. 2 to 58 are all claiming under defendant No. 1. The trial Judge, therefore, was mistaken in holding that there was any misjoinder of parties or causes of action. He had no power under the circumstances to call upon the plaintiffs to amend their plaint in the manner directed nor to dismiss the suit when they failed to do so. I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Saiyed Afzal Shah And Anr. vs Lachmi Narain And Ors. on 23 June, 1917

836, F.B. The lower Court has relied on the case in Afzal Shah v. Lachmi Narain (1917) I.L.R. 40 All. 7, where it was held that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action on the ground that several trespassers unconnected with each other were sued in one suit, and the suit was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to bring separate suits, It is not necessary in the present case to go into that question for we have to decide on the allegations made in the plaint whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of causes of action. The plaintiffs in their plaint stated that defendant No. 1 was his sub-tenant, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession after the expiry of twenty years of the lease and that the other defendants were either the sub-tenants of defendant No. 1 or claiming through him. In deciding the preliminary point like the present one of misjoinder of causes of action the admissions of the plaintiff if made in the plaint may be taken as true. If there are no admissions made by the plaintiff the allegations in the plaint may be assumed to be true. The learned Judge has held that the plaintiffs' suit is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of causes of action on the ground of the allegations made in the defendant's written statement which are not proved by any evidence. It would not be unfair to dismiss the plaintiff's suit on the assumption of the truth of the allegations in the plaint if they justify that course ; but it would be manifestly unjust to dismiss the plaintiff's suit on allegations in the written statement which are not proved by the defendant. The position that the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint must be assumed to be true is supported by the wording of Order I, Rule 3, which says: "All persons may be joined as defendants against whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist". Having regard to the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint, I think that the present suit is not bad for misjoinder of causes of action. Further, the test in the present case is that the plaintiff is suing for the whole land and not in bits, and the plaintiff is entitled to relief in respect of the whole land. The relief which he claims in respect of the transaction of lease is in respect of the whole land, and the allegation that the defendants are claiming different bits of the land among themselves is not a sufficient basis for holding that the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Ishan Chunder Hazra And Ors. vs Rameswar Mondol And Ors. on 29 June, 1897

14. Applying this rule in the light of the averments in the plaint, the twenty years' lease of 1894 was a transaction which entitles the plaintiff on the expiry of that lease to recover possession not only from the original lesssee himself but from all persons who have obtained an entry on the land through him. It is hardly accessary to cite authorities, because Mr. Fradhan on behalf of the respondents has admitted that, once we hold that the allegation in the plaint is to be accepted for the purpose of this issue, and hold, therefore, that defendants Nos. 2 to 58 are claiming under defendant No. 1. then there is no question of misjoinder. I may mention, however, Ishan Chunder Hazra v. Rameswar Mondol (1897) I.L.R. 24 Cal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Ramendra Nath Roy vs Brajendra Nath Dass on 10 February, 1919

5. In the present case the plaintiff sues to recover possession which is a relief arising out of the transaction of the lease passed in favour of defendant No. 1 and alleged to exist against all the defendants severally, and it would appear that if separate suits were brought against the defendants common questions of law and fact would arise. The common questions of facts which would arise are whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the land, and whether the period of the lease has expired, and plaintiffs are entitled to immediate possession. The common question of law arising against all the defendants would be whether the plaintiffs' suit is within time. I think, therefore, that the terms of Order I, Rule 3, are sufficiently complied with in the present case. Order I, Rule 3, not only refers to parties to actions but also to causes of action as held by the Calcutta High Court in Ramendra Nath Roy v. Brajendra Nath Dass (1917) I.L.R. 45 Cal. 111. The mere fact that there are several defendants in the suit is not decisive. A person can sue for partition and join as defendants several alienees or mortgagees from different members of the family. So also a reversioner or an adopted son can bring a suit to recover property to which he is entitled notwithstanding the alienations made by the widow in favour of different persons. The defendants may be claiming under different titles, but if the plaintiff is entitled to a relief in respect of an act or transaction or series of acts or transactions against the defendants jointly, severally or in the alternative, and if common questions of law or fact are likely to arise, the suit would not be liable to be dismissed on the ground of miajoinder of causes of action.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Kanhaya Lal vs National Bank Of India Limited on 23 April, 1923

13. Mr. Patwardhan on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants has argued firstly, that in order to decide the question whether there is misjoinder of parties and causes of action what is to be looked at is the allegations in the plaint; secondly, that if this be done then under the provisions of Order I, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs are entitled to include all these defendants in one suit. In my opinion both these contentions are correct. We were referred, in support of the contention that the question of misjoinder depends upon the plaintiffs' allegations, to Mussamut Ackjoo Bibee v. Lallah Ramchunder Lall Sahai (1875) 23 W.R. 400, Kanhaya Lal v. National Bank of India , and Govindaraja Mudaliar v. Alagappa Thambiran (1926) I.L.R. 49 Mad. 836, 839. But, apart from any authority, it is sufficiently clear from the language of the rule itself, that is to say, from the use of the words "is alleged to exist", that what the Court has to consider in this connection is the allegations in the plaint and not the defences that may be put forward by the defendants. Order I, Rule 3, is as follows:--
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1