Skip to content


Amiran Bibi and ors. Vs. Rahim Bakhsh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR18All219
AppellantAmiran Bibi and ors.
RespondentRahim Bakhsh
Excerpt:
misjoinder of causes of action - suit by one plaintiff claiming by inheritance and another claiming as assignee from the first--civil procedure code, sections 31, 45, 53. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by..........amiran, the first plaintiff, of a portion of the share claimed by her. rahim bakhsh, among other pleas, raised an objection to the frame of the suit, on the ground that one plaintiff had nothing to do with the others and that a collective suit on behalf of all the plaintiffs could not be entertained. he evidently meant that there was a misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action. the first issue raised in the court below had reference to this plea, and it is evident from the judgment of the subordinate judge that he understood the plea to be one of misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action. the subordinate judge, however, overruled that plea and on the merits found in favour of the plaintiffs. the objection as to misjoinder of causes of action has been raised again in the.....
Judgment:

Banerji and Aikman, JJ.

1. This appeal was preferred by Sheikh Rahim Bakhsh, one of the defendants to the suit. The suit was brought by three plaintiffs, two of whom claimed to be heirs to one Fateh Ali, who was alleged to have once been the owner of the property claimed. The third plaintiff, Muhammad Hasan, was an assignee from Musammat Amiran, the first plaintiff, of a portion of the share claimed by her. Rahim Bakhsh, among other pleas, raised an objection to the frame of the suit, on the ground that one plaintiff had nothing to do with the others and that a collective suit on behalf of all the plaintiffs could not be entertained. He evidently meant that there was a misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action. The first issue raised in the Court below had reference to this plea, and it is evident from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge that he understood the plea to be one of misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action. The Subordinate Judge, however, overruled that plea and on the merits found in favour of the plaintiffs. The objection as to misjoinder of causes of action has been raised again in the memorandum of appeal to this Court, and we are of opinion that it must prevail. The same question arose in the case of Salima Bibi v. Sheikh Muhammad Supra. p. 131, and it was decided in that case that the cause of action of an assignee, like the respondent, Muhammad Hasan, was not the same as that of his assignor. This case cannot be distinguished from the ruling referred to above. Applying the ruling laid down in that case, we hold that there was a misjoinder of causes of action in this suit and that the three plaintiffs were not entitled to bring or maintain a joint suit in respect of their separate causes of action.

2. We allow this appeal with costs here and in the Court below, and we set aside the decree below, and direct the Court below to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for amendment, so that the plaintiffs may elect which of them will proceed with the suit.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //