Skip to content


Sivasankaram Pillai Alias Doraiswamy Pillai and ors. Vs. Perumal Nayakkar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.106
AppellantSivasankaram Pillai Alias Doraiswamy Pillai and ors.
RespondentPerumal Nayakkar
Cases ReferredKosuri Ramaraju v. Ivalury Ramalingam
Excerpt:
misjoinder of parties - objection when to be taken--misjoinder of causes of action--misjoinder not affecting merit's--pleading--practice. - - if they had raised this plea at the right time, the plaintiff might have agreed to the dismissal of the suit against them and avoided the expenses of the trial, but we think that, having failed to raise this point in their written statement or at issues, the defendants ought not to have been allowed to raise it at a later stage......the 1st defendant to sell the suit lands. defendants nos. 2 to 5 did not raise this point in their written statement or get any issue on it, but pleaded that the sale was effected by the 1st defendant for immoral purposes and so not binding on them, and had issues framed and went to trial on this question. if they had raised this plea at the right time, the plaintiff might have agreed to the dismissal of the suit against them and avoided the expenses of the trial, but we think that, having failed to raise this point in their written statement or at issues, the defendants ought not to have been allowed to raise it at a later stage. as regards the objection of misjoinder of causes of action, no relief has been granted on the alternative cause of action, if there be one, and the misjoinder.....
Judgment:

1. The appellants contend on the authority of Kosuri Ramaraju v. Ivalury Ramalingam 26 M. 74 that defendants Nos. 2 to 5 the other co-parceners of the 1st defendant should not have been joined as defendants in a suit for specific performance of a contract made by the 1st defendant to sell the suit lands. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 did not raise this point in their written statement or get any issue on it, but pleaded that the sale was effected by the 1st defendant for immoral purposes and so not binding on them, and had issues framed and went to trial on this question. If they had raised this plea at the right time, the plaintiff might have agreed to the dismissal of the suit against them and avoided the expenses of the trial, but we think that, having failed to raise this point in their written statement or at issues, the defendants ought not to have been allowed to raise it at a later stage. As regards the objection of misjoinder of causes of action, no relief has been granted on the alternative cause of action, if there be one, and the misjoinder has not affected the merits of the case. It is, therefore, no ground for reversing the decree.

2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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