Skip to content


Robert Fischer and ors. Vs. Nagappa Mudaly and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.288a
AppellantRobert Fischer and ors.
RespondentNagappa Mudaly and ors.
Cases ReferredPeria Muthirian v. Karappanna Muthirian
Excerpt:
withdrawal of suit - order conditional--expiry of time--second suit--suit on behalf of plaintiff and other villagers. - .....specified date. the time fixed for the performance of the condition had expired when the present suit was instituted. this distinguishes the present case from the case of abdul aziz v. ebrahim molla 31 c.k 965, where no time was specified within which the condition was to be performed, and in fact the condition had been performed when the second suit came in for trial peria muthirian v. karappanna muthirian 29 m.k 370, is not in point, for there the time for payment had been extended by the court which made the order for payment. as regards the 2nd point, the plaint as correctly translated alleges that the plaintiff sues on behalf of himself and the villagers. so far as the plaintiff is concerned, there is no new title and no new cause of action. so far as the villagers (by which word.....
Judgment:

1. The leave to withdraw with liberty to bring a fresh suit given by the District Munsif was conditional on the plaintiff paying the costs of the former suits on or before a specified date. The time fixed for the performance of the condition had expired when the present suit was instituted. This distinguishes the present case from the case of Abdul Aziz v. Ebrahim Molla 31 C.K 965, where no time was specified within which the condition was to be performed, and in fact the condition had been performed when the second suit came in for trial Peria Muthirian v. Karappanna Muthirian 29 M.K 370, is not in point, for there the time for payment had been extended by the Court which made the order for payment. As regards the 2nd point, the plaint as correctly translated alleges that the plaintiff sues on behalf of himself and the villagers. So far as the plaintiff is concerned, there is no new title and no new cause of action. So far as the villagers (by which word tenants are intended) the plaintiff is not entitled to sue on their behalf for it is not alleged in the plaint that he is a tenant.

2. The Second Appeals Nos. 1093 and 1097 are dismissed with costs.

3. Second Appeals Nos. 1094, 1095 and 1096 are dismissed without costs.


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