Skip to content


A. Raghava Aiyar and anr. Vs. Murugesa Mudali and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.97
AppellantA. Raghava Aiyar and anr.;ganapathi Mudali and ors.
RespondentMurugesa Mudali and ors.;ragava Aiyar and ors.
Excerpt:
misjoinder of parties - objection taken for first time in appeal--inadmissible. - .....objection in appeal. it was open to the plaintiff to ask for a declaration that the alienation in favour of defendants nos. 7 and 11 was invalid, and the only objection to his doing so would be misjoinder of parties and causes of action. by making them defendants, the plaintiff substantially wanted the court to hold that defendants nos. 7 and 11 had no valid right to hold the properties under the alienations in their favour. in this view, it is unnecessary to decide whether defendants nos. 7 and 11 would be within the purview of clause (c) of section 27 of the specific relief act, as persons claiming under a title which, though prior to the contract in plaintiff's favour, might have been displaced by the 1st and 2nd defendants. the subordinate judge did not deal with the question as.....
Judgment:

1. The 7th and 11th defendants did not object to the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them. The Court of first instance tried the question of the validity of the alienations in favour of those defendants and recorded a finding on the question. Assuming that, strictly speaking, the suit for specific performance would not be maintainable against the alienees from the widow, we do not think that, when no objection was taken on that ground, and after the question between them and the plaintiff had been decided on the merits, the Appellate Court should have entertained the objection in appeal. It was open to the plaintiff to ask for a declaration that the alienation in favour of defendants Nos. 7 and 11 was invalid, and the only objection to his doing so would be misjoinder of parties and causes of action. By making them defendants, the plaintiff substantially wanted the Court to hold that defendants Nos. 7 and 11 had no valid right to hold the properties under the alienations in their favour. In this view, it is unnecessary to decide whether defendants Nos. 7 and 11 would be within the purview of Clause (c) of Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, as persons claiming under a title which, though prior to the contract in plaintiff's favour, might have been displaced by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The Subordinate Judge did not deal with the question as between the plaintiff and these defendants as well as defendants Nos. 4, 16 and 17, as it was unnecessary to do so in the view he took of the case. These other defendants also did not raise any objection to the question between them and the plaintiff being tried in the suit. We reverse the decree of the lower Appellate Court so far as defendants Nos. 7, 11, 4, 16, 17 and 19 are concerned, and remand the appeal for fresh disposal according to law. Costs in this Court in both the second appeals will abide the result.

2. It is said by Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar on behalf of the plaintiff, that he is prepared to accept a conveyance of whatever lands the 1st and 2nd defendants had a valid title to convey for the whole price agreed upon.


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