Skip to content


Yanne Bavajee and ors. Vs. Pisipati Annapurnama and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in115Ind.Cas.812
AppellantYanne Bavajee and ors.
RespondentPisipati Annapurnama and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115, order i, rule 10 - revision--jurisdiction of high court to add party defendant to avoid conflicting findings. - .....shastri was. one of the issues framed in the suit reads thus: who was the last male holder of the suit properties?2. in these circumstances the defendants in the three suits in question applied that nagabushanam mignt be made a party defendant. there was some delay in making the application and the district munsif naturally felt disinclined to comply with the request. i should not ordinarily interfere with an order of this kind but it is very necessary to do that if possible conflicting findings should be avoided. a finding may be arrived at in favour of the plaintiffs in the present suits. what prevents a different finding being reached in a suit nagabushanam may choose to file. i would, therefore, set aside the order of the district munsif and direct nagabushanam to be made defendant.....
Judgment:

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the daughters of Pullama who died on the 5th of December, 1925. They claim that, on their mother's death, they became entitled to the properties of their father Narayanappa and in this suit they seek to get certain alienations set aside. The suit was filed in December, 1926, and on the 10th of March, 1927, one Nagabushanam sent a notice to the defendants claiming the properties to which the suit relates on the ground that he is the reversionary heir of Shastri the son of Narayanappa. The question really resolves itself into this who died later the son or the father? In other words, who is the last male holder? The plaintiff's case is that Narayanappa was, whereas Nagabushanam's case is that Shastri was. One of the issues framed in the suit reads thus: Who was the last male holder of the suit properties?

2. In these circumstances the defendants in the three suits in question applied that Nagabushanam mignt be made a party defendant. There was some delay in making the application and the District Munsif naturally felt disinclined to comply with the request. I should not ordinarily interfere with an order of this kind but it is very necessary to do that if possible conflicting findings should be avoided. A finding may be arrived at in favour of the plaintiffs in the present suits. What prevents a different finding being reached in a suit Nagabushanam may choose to file. I would, therefore, set aside the order of the District Munsif and direct Nagabushanam to be made defendant in each of the three suits.

3. As the application was made late I direct the defendants to pay the costs here and as well as in the lower Court. I fix the costs of the revision petitions at Rs. 50 and the costs below at Rs. 50 (total Rs. 100) in all the three suits, to be paid in three equal shares by the three sets of defendants.


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