Skip to content


Jekkam Reddi Seshadri Reddi and Two ors. Vs. Sir S. Subramania Aiyar K.C.i.R. and Three ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR43Mad720
AppellantJekkam Reddi Seshadri Reddi and Two ors.
RespondentSir S. Subramania Aiyar K.C.i.R. and Three ors.
Cases ReferredDarves Haji Mahamad v. Jainudin I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 92-suit by two persons, one of whom had no interest under the section - leave under the section obtained subsequently by two others having such interest--latter joined as additional plaintiffs--suit, whether maintainable. - - 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 the third and fourth plaintiffs in the same suit......collector and obtained sanction to institute this very suits, 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 the third and fourth 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. krishnayyangar i.l.r. (1887) mad. 185, which would cover the present case, but it was argued that in the old code no such clause as that in sub-paragraph (2) of section 92 occurred in section 539 and that the latter paragraph makes a difference......
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

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 suits, 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 the third and fourth 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. Krishnayyangar I.L.R. (1887) Mad. 185, which would cover the present case, but it was argued that in the old Code no such clause as that in sub-paragraph (2) of Section 92 occurred in Section 539 and that the latter paragraph makes a difference. We find, however that Ramayyangar v. Krishnayyangar I.L.R. (1887) 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, JJ., in Appeals Nos, 310 and 373 of 1918 and the other is the judgment of Spencer and Krishnan, JJ., in Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhigal v. The Advocate-General of Madras I.L.R. (1920) Mad. 707. On the other hand, there is a ruling of the Bombay High Court in Darves Haji Mahamad v. Jainudin I.L.R. (1906) 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 the Subordinate Judge is set aside and the case will be remanded to him for disposal on the merits, the memorandum of objections being allowed.


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