Skip to content


Avanama alias Kanhiyoor Mana alias thekkini Yedath Kirangot Manakkal Narayana Nambudripad's son Narayana Nambudripad Vs. Narayana Nambudripad and Ors. (20.07.1914 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Mad320(1); 25Ind.Cas.25
AppellantAvanama alias Kanhiyoor Mana alias thekkini Yedath Kirangot Manakkal Narayana Nambudripad's son Nara
RespondentNarayana Nambudripad and Ors.
Cases ReferredSivasankaram Pillai v. Perumal Nayakar
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order i, rule 13, order ii, rule 7 - misjoinder of causes of action and parties--suits valuation act (vii of 1887), section 11--jurisdiction, objection as to. - .....it existed) affected the merits.2. nor was the district judge justified in reversing the munsif's decision on the ground that the value of the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the munsif, there being again no allegation or proof that the disposal of the suit by the munsif affected the merits see section 11, clause (b), of the suits valuation act , the objection as to jurisdiction on the ground of the alleged under-valuation not having been taken before the munsif section 11, clause (a). 3. we reverse the lower appellate court's decision and remand the case to that court for decision of the appeal before it on the merits. the respondents will pay the appellant's costs in second appeal.
Judgment:

1. Following Lala Rup Narain v. Gopal Devi 3 Ind. Cas. 382 : 36 C. 780 : 6 A.L.J. 567 : 10 Cri.L.J. 58 : 13 C.W.N. 920 : 5 M.L.T. 423 : 11 Bom. L.R. 833 : 93 P.R. 1909 : 19 M.L.J. 548 : 36 I.A. 103, see also Baghavd Aiyar v. Murugesa Mudnli 17 Ind. Cas. 97, Tej Mal Sowcar v. Jagappilla Papayamma 13 Ind. Cas. 788 : 22 M.L.J. 225 : 11 M.L.T. 25 : (1912) M.W.N. 50, Vencatamuniappa Chetty v. Goddam Chandappa 5 Ind. Cas. 466 : 7 M.L.T. 364, Sivasankaram Pillai v. Perumal Nayakar 4 Ind. Cas. 106 : 7 M.L.T. 78 and In Re: Krishnaswami Pathan 8 Ind. Cas. 885 : 9 M.L.T. 173 we must hold that the question of misjoinder cannot be made a ground for reversing the decision of the Munsif as there is no evidence and there was no contention even that such misjoinder (assuming that it existed) affected the merits.

2. Nor was the District Judge justified in reversing the Munsif's decision on the ground that the value of the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsif, there being again no allegation or proof that the disposal of the suit by the Munsif affected the merits see Section 11, Clause (b), of the Suits Valuation Act , the objection as to jurisdiction on the ground of the alleged under-valuation not having been taken before the Munsif section 11, Clause (a).

3. We reverse the lower Appellate Court's decision and remand the case to that Court for decision of the appeal before it on the merits. The respondents will pay the appellant's costs in second appeal.


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