Skip to content


Srimana Vikraman and anr. Vs. Rayan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1893)ILR16Mad293
AppellantSrimana Vikraman and anr.
RespondentRayan and ors.
Cases ReferredBoydonath Surmah v. Ojan Bibee
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 188. section 544--appeal by two persons--withdrawal of one appellant from appeal--reversal of decree on appeal. - .....in error in reversing the whole decree when only two of the defendants appealed, one of whom withdrew from the appeal and reliance is placed on the wording of section 544, civil procedure code, and a case reported, boydonath surmah v. ojan bibee 11 w.r., 238. that case is not on all fours with the present. the ground common to all the defendants was that the plaintiff was not the jenmi and that defendants nos. 1 and 2 never held under him. the first and second defendants disclaimed all interest. the third defendant claimed to be the jenmi and the eighth defendant, the appellant in the lower appellate court, claimed as kanomdar under the third defendant. the decree of the district munsif proceeded on the ground that the plaintiffs were the jenmis and that defendants nos. 1 and 2 held.....
Judgment:

1. The only point urged is that the Subordinate Judge was in error in reversing the whole decree when only two of the defendants appealed, one of whom withdrew from the appeal and reliance is placed on the wording of Section 544, Civil Procedure Code, and a case reported, Boydonath Surmah v. Ojan Bibee 11 W.R., 238. That case is not on all fours with the present. The ground common to all the defendants was that the plaintiff was not the jenmi and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 never held under him. The first and second defendants disclaimed all interest. The third defendant claimed to be the jenmi and the eighth defendant, the appellant in the Lower Appellate Court, claimed as kanomdar under the third defendant. The decree of the District Munsif proceeded on the ground that the plaintiffs were the jenmis and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 held under them. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 having disclaimed all interest, the only substantial defendants were the third and eighth. We cannot, therefore, say that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in reversing the decree of the Court of First Instance on the appeal of one of the defendants alone. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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