Skip to content


Raja Velugoti Sri Govinda Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu Vs. Mudumbi Srinivasa Ramacharlu (Minor) by Guardian, M. Venkataraghavacharlu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in90Ind.Cas.748; (1925)49MLJ420
AppellantRaja Velugoti Sri Govinda Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu
RespondentMudumbi Srinivasa Ramacharlu (Minor) by Guardian, M. Venkataraghavacharlu and ors.
Cases ReferredDoraiswami Pillai v. Muthuswami Mooppan
Excerpt:
- - the subordinate judge has found the suit bad for multifariousness and put plaintiff to his election on the ground that the disputes are not connected with each other......that certain plots of lands were not as alleged by the plaintiff within the boundaries of the village of inagaloor of which he is the proprietor. the subordinate judge has found the suit bad for multifariousness and put plaintiff to his election on the ground that the disputes are not connected with each other. he also speaks of encroachments but i am unable to see any reference to such in the plaint. now under the old code it was held in doraiswami pillai v. muthuswami mooppan ilr (1903) m 94. that a suit might be brought against a number of purchasers of different items of land distrained and sold under the rent recovery act as the cause of action, viz., the wrongful sale, was the same against all the defendants. so here in my opinion it is the decision of the survey authorities.....
Judgment:

Odgers, J.

1. The suit is filed against decisions of the Head Surveyor and Assistant Director of Survey underSection 13 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1897. The survey authorities decided that certain plots of lands were not as alleged by the plaintiff within the boundaries of the village of Inagaloor of which he is the proprietor. The Subordinate Judge has found the suit bad for multifariousness and put plaintiff to his election on the ground that the disputes are not connected with each other. He also speaks of encroachments but I am unable to see any reference to such in the plaint. Now under the old Code it was held in Doraiswami Pillai v. Muthuswami Mooppan ILR (1903) M 94. that a suit might be brought against a number of purchasers of different items of land distrained and sold under the Rent Recovery Act as the cause of action, viz., the wrongful sale, was the same against all the defendants. So here in my opinion it is the decision of the survey authorities and it should be remarked that all the objections seem to have been dealt with in a single order both by the Head Surveyor and by the Assistant Director, that are common cause of action. The sole question in the case is whether plots in the possession of each defendant are or are not included in the village of Inagaloor andI think a right of relief in respect of the same act or series of acts (viz., the decisions referred to above) exists against them severally underOrder I, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. If separate suits were brought the common question of fact would be whether the plots should be included in the village of Inagaloor. The respondents do not appear. The Subordinate Judge was wrong. His order must be, set aside and the trial of the suit proceeded with.


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