Skip to content


Jakkam Reddi Seshadri Reddi and ors. Vs. Sir S. Subramania Aiyar, K.C.i.E. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1920)38MLJ504
AppellantJakkam Reddi Seshadri Reddi and ors.
RespondentSir S. Subramania Aiyar, K.C.i.E. and ors.
Cases ReferredDarves Haji Mohamad v. Jainuddin I.L.
Excerpt:
- - objection was, however, taken by the defendants to the effect that the suit was bad as laid and must be dismissed and that the requirements of section 92 were not satisfied by adding 3rd and 4th plaintiffs in the same suit......of section 92 were not satisfied by adding 3rd and 4th plaintiffs in the same suit. the learned subordinate judge heard the objection discussed it and came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly instituted and dismissed it. there is a ruling of this court in ramayyangar v. krishnaaiyangar i.l.r. (1886) mad. 185 which would cover the present case; but it was argued that in the old code no such clause as that in the sub-paragraph 2 of section 92 occurred in section 539 and that the latter paragraph makes a difference. we find however that the ruling in ramayyangar v. krishnaiyangar i.l.r. (1886) mad. 185 has been followed in some very recent cases of this court decided under the new code. one of them is a decision of oldfield and bakewell, j. j., in appeals nos. 310 and 378 of.....
Judgment:

1. One of the Plaintiffs in this suit which was instituted under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code was found to have no interest such as that required by this section. Thereupon two other men who had the requisite interest applied to the Collector and obtained sanction to institute this very suit. They were then added as third and fourth plaintiffs. Objection was, however, taken by the defendants to the effect that the suit was bad as laid and must be dismissed and that the requirements of Section 92 were not satisfied by adding 3rd and 4th plaintiffs in the same suit. The learned Subordinate Judge heard the objection discussed it and came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly instituted and dismissed it. There is a ruling of this Court in Ramayyangar v. Krishnaaiyangar I.L.R. (1886) Mad. 185 which would cover the present case; but it was argued that in the old Code no such clause as that in the sub-paragraph 2 of Section 92 occurred in Section 539 and that the latter paragraph makes a difference. We find however that the ruling in Ramayyangar v. Krishnaiyangar I.L.R. (1886) Mad. 185 has been followed in some very recent cases of this Court decided under the New Code. One of them is a decision of Oldfield and Bakewell, J. J., in Appeals Nos. 310 and 378 of 1918 and the other is the judgment of Spencer and Krishnan, J.J., in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 892 and 893 of 1919. On the other hand there is a ruling of the Bombay High Court in Darves Haji Mohamad v. Jainuddin I.L.R(1906) 30 Bom. 603 contrary to the view taken in these cases. And the Allahabad High Court seems to have taken the same view of the law as the Bombay High Court. But the matter being purely one of procedure we think we ought to follow the rulings of this Court. The Judgment of Subordinate Judge is set aside and the case will be remanded to him for disposal on the merits, the memorandum of objections being allowed.

2. Costs of the memorandum of objections will abide the result. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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