Skip to content


Shruvararayan Alias Anujan Kunjunni Raja and ors. Vs. Pulthia Kovila Katti Vararayan Alias Unni Anujan Raja and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.268
AppellantShruvararayan Alias Anujan Kunjunni Raja and ors.
RespondentPulthia Kovila Katti Vararayan Alias Unni Anujan Raja and ors.
Cases ReferredShakul Kameed Ali Sahib v. Syed Ibrahim Sahib
Excerpt:
contribution, suit for - costs to de recovered from plaintiffs and defendants--bona fide parties. - .....recovered from the plaintiffs and defendants sued as plaintiffs. that suit was for maintenance against a karnavathi and her anandravans. the suit was decreed against the karnavathi but dismissed with costs against the anandravans. looking at paragraph 14 of the judgment in that case exhibit iii, we are not disposed to think that the joinder of the other defendants in that case was otherwise than bona fide. we agree with the munsif in the present case in holding that the defendants have failed to show that there was any misconduct in the plaintiffs in impleading the defendants whose costs they were made to pay. the rule in merryweather v. nixon 16 r.r. 810 : 8 tr 186, is one of doubtful expediency. it certainly is not to be extended to cases where costs have been ordered in a bona fide.....
Judgment:

1. This is a suit for contribution for costs recovered from the plaintiffs and defendants sued as plaintiffs. That suit was for maintenance against a karnavathi and her anandravans. The suit was decreed against the karnavathi but dismissed with costs against the anandravans. Looking at paragraph 14 of the judgment in that case Exhibit III, we are not disposed to think that the joinder of the other defendants in that case was otherwise than bona fide. We agree with the Munsif in the present case in holding that the defendants have failed to show that there was any misconduct in the plaintiffs in impleading the defendants whose costs they were made to pay. The rule in Merryweather v. Nixon 16 R.R. 810 : 8 TR 186, is one of doubtful expediency. It certainly is not to be extended to cases where costs have been ordered in a bona fide litigation, see Shakul Kameed Ali Sahib v. Syed Ibrahim Sahib 26 M. 373. We must dismiss the second appeal.


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