Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: allahabad Page 1 of about 108 results (0.005 seconds)

Nov 11 1929 (PC)

Shyam Behari Mal Vs. Maha Prasad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1930All180

..... be provided against the evil arising from multifariousness of suits which generally result in waste of time and waste of money. unless the joinder of parties and causes of action are calculated to ..... to dismiss the suit. substantial justice should in no case be allowed to be sacrificed to a wretched technicality. even where the defect of multifariousness is patent on the face of the pleadings the plea cannot be entertained unless it was raised at the earliest possible opportunity. safeguards have to ..... of the case, a remand was neither necessary nor desirable.19. the lower appellate court is emphatic in its pronouncement that 'there undoubtedly is multifariousness in the suit.' this finding has been vehemently assailed by the appellant before this court but there can be no doubt as to its correctness. ..... lower appellate court but there was no adjudication of the issues raised.16. the lower appellate court held that the suit was bad for multifariousness and that having regard to the constitution of the action the suit could not proceed in the form in which it was brought and that ..... property has been transferred to him.13. the lower appellate court was not justified in narrowing down the point under enquiry to the plea of multifariousness. where the settlor is possessed of property which has not been either gifted or endowed, the donee of the property cannot be held to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 1985 (HC)

Dwarke Prasad Vs. Kishan Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1986All174

..... the right of election to the plaintiff. but the trial court negatived this with the observation that 'in a suit which is itself bad for multifariousness there is no question of giving a right of election to the plaintiff.' this has been referred to by the trial judge in the decision finally ..... till the matter came up for hearing in the course of arguments. the suit was instituted in the year 1958. preliminary issue on the point of multifariousness was decided by the trial court on 15th sept. 1969. this was followed by the dismissal of the suit directed on 7th mar. 1970. the ..... to the validity of the deposits in view of the relevant provisions of the rent control act. these are the distinct facts on which the plaintiffs' multifariousness was overruled in that case. but the factual situation in the present being as it is, the analogy may not be said to be attracted.10 ..... action as resorted to in the present caste. on account, thus, of the mis-joinder, both of parties and causes of action, the action suffers from multifarious ness.9. learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on mst. ramdayee v. .dhanraj kochar, air 1972 cal 313. the plaintiffs' case therein was that the ..... are other reliefs claimed also, a reference to which will be made below. the defendants resisted the suit pleading, inter alia, that this was bad for multifariousness. preliminary issue on this point was decided by the trial court against the plaintiff on 15th sept, 1969. on the basis of the findings thereon the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 1941 (PC)

inder Bahadur Singh Vs. Sita Ram and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1941All209

..... father to recover various portions of their father's estate from the hands of different alienees, and it was held that the suit was not bad for multifariousness. at p. 270 the learned judges say:the contention is that inasmuch as the property passed out of the hands of members of the family at ..... defendants not only other reversioners in possession of the property claimed, but also transferees of such property from the widow and such a suit is not bad for multifarious-ness. the decision in that case rested upon the provisions of order 4, rule 3, civil p.c., and. the learned judges say:under that ..... similar suit brought against the alienees of a deceased member of a joint hindu family for the recovery of family property illegally alienated was not bad for multifariousness.8. further on they say:in the view that the primary ground of action is the interest vested in possession as regards the whole of the property ..... alleged to have been illegally alienated by him and it was held by the court that the suit ought not to be dismissed on the ground of multifariousness. at page 293 the learned judges say:it is manifest that the number and nature of the alienations are no unimportant elements for the determination of their ..... of immorality of purpose. there were 62 defendants to the suit, and one of the pleas taken in defence was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. the learned munsif says:the result of this is that in reality the suit is not a single suit, but is a collection of a very .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1908 (PC)

Kubra Jan Vs. Ram Bali and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1908)ILR30All560

..... whom the widow in her lifetime bad by separate alienations transferred separate portions of the property claimed. it was held that the suit was bad for multifariousness. it will be at once noticed that this was a suit not against one of the heirs of a deceased person and the transferees from such ..... only one cause of action, not several, distinct and separate causes of action. in the other case the defence that the suit was bad for multifariousness was set up, the allegation of the defendants being that they were severally in possession of different and distinct portions of the land in dispute under ..... it was held that the fact that the defendants set up different titles to the various portions held by them would not render the suit bad for multifariousness. the plaintiffs had one cause of action, namely, the right on the death of their father to obtain possession of their shares of his property ..... the code of civil procedure the plaintiff was justified in instituting the suit in the bareilly court unless it be that the claim was defective for multifariousness. we have therefore first to consider whether or not the suit of the plaintiff was bad for this reason.5. the claim of the plaintiff ..... in the suit.3. from that decree the present appeal has been preferred. the questions in the case are whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and whether the subordinate judge of bareilly was justified in entertaining it after the compromise of the claim in respect of the bareilly property.4. there .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 1948 (PC)

Jagarnath Sahu and ors. Vs. Srikant Dube and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All589

..... to accept this contention. in the first place, because even in a regular suit the joinder of such causes of action would result in the defect of multifariousness for which ample authority has already been quoted, and, in the second place, because causes of action may not be joined so as to permit court ..... in the equity of redemption. a suit for redemption in which adverse claims are sought to be investigated would, therefore, be as much bad for multifariousness as a suit for foreclosure or sale would be on the same ground. i am supported in this view by a decision of the bombay high ..... purchasers of other portions of the mortgaged property who were made parties and who also alleged paramount titles in themselves, so that the suit would have been multifarious and confused in the highest degree if it had gone on in that shape.' (per lord hobhouse, in nilakant's case 12 i.a. 171 supra ..... have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for their determination, if properly framed. how the suit becomes multifarious will appear from the following short quotations from juggeswar dutt's case 33 cal. 425 3 c.l.j. 205 and the two cases decided by ..... a title paramount to that of the mortgagor and the mortgagee, are sought to be investigated, is open to objection on the ground of misjoinder and multifariousness and(2) that if adverse claims be allowed to be litigated in a mortgage suit, such claims may obviously be determined by a court which would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1910 (PC)

Kunwar Gobind Krishn NaraIn and anr. Vs. Musammat Sirjunnissa Begam

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.226

..... property part of which had passed into the hands of transferees. the transferors as well as the transferees were impleaded in the suit. it was contended that the suit was multifarious, that each defendant having disturbed plaintiff's possession as to a particular portion of the property independently of the other defendants, the plaintiff had a separate cause of action as ..... against each set of defendants and that the suit was bad for multifariousness. this contention was repelled, the court of which one of us was a member holding that the plaintiffs had only one cause of action, namely, the right on the death ..... claim in respect of it was abandoned and the suit proceeded as regards the bara banki property only. the contention in the case was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. this contention was repelled, it being held that there were not two causes of action one against the plaintiff's brother and the other against the transferees but a single ..... was contended that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. it was held, reversing the decree of the district judge, that the suit was not bad for multifariousness, the plaintiff's cause of action being that there was only one cause of action, namely, the right of the plaintiffs as reversioners on the death of a previous owner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1928 (PC)

Gauri Shankar Vs. Keshab Deo and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1929All148; 114Ind.Cas.881

..... questions of fact which arose in each case would have been considered separately and threshed out in detail. the plaintiff, however, has chosen to bring one multifarious suit, and the allegations in the plaint, even after they were supplemented by his application dated 9th july 1923, were by no means specific or ..... not decreed. it is, therefore, not possible for us to dismiss the suit in appeal on the preliminary ground that it is bad for multifariousness.5. in his plaint the plaintiff admitted that a firm styled sham lal gokul chand was started about 1860 at hathras and another one was opened ..... defendants was very inconvenient and embarrassing. but now that the whole evidence has been recorded it is too late for us to consider the defect of multifariousness, as under section 99, civil p.c., an appellate court cannot interfere on this ground unless the defect has affected the merits of the ..... denial that the plaintiff had in any way been prejudiced. several defendants also took the plea that the suit was bad for multifariousness inasmuch as numerous causes of action had been wrongly jointed together.3. the learned subordinate judge framed several issues including the one as to the ..... question of multifariousness. unfortunately he postponed the decision of the last mentioned issue till all the evidence had been recorded and then summarily disposed of it, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1914 (PC)

Bal Krishna Das Vs. Hira Lal Bagla and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1914All393; (1914)ILR36All406

..... same lady. these transfers he alleges to be null and void as against his interest. there were various defences, among them being the plea that the suit was bad for multifariousness. during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 came to terms. under the compromise that house which was transferred to defendants 3 and 4 and ..... 2. on the basis of this compromise the court below gave the plaintiff a decree as against defendant 1 and 2, but it held that the suit was bad for multifariousness and it called upon the plaintiff to elect as to the portion of his suit with which he would proceed. the plaintiff declined to elect, and so the court below ..... civil procedure, the point is covered by the clear language of order i, rule 3. under that order it is clear that the plaintiff's suit was not bad for multifariousness and be was entitled to join all the defendants as parties to the suit so as to enable him to recover his share in the whole of the estate of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 1930 (PC)

Mithai and ors. Vs. Hasan Ali and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1930All863; 128Ind.Cas.827

..... a second and subsequent suit. in our opinion the learned subordinate judge ought to have acceded to the request of the respondents' counsel that he should ignore the plea of multifariousness raised by the defendants themselves and ought to have tried the case on the merits. it is not suggested that either of the parties have suffered on the merits by ..... the result the learned munsif dismissed the suit. it is to be noted that in the order dismissing the suit he does not give multifariousness as one of the reasons for the order that he was passing.3. on appeal by the plaintiffs the learned subordinate judge started by saying that the munsif decided the ..... munsif framed eight issues and he decided all of them. he found that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. he found that the suit was bad for multifariousness and he found that most of the buildings on the site were more than 12 years old. he also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages. in ..... remand so far as the aforesaid four persons are concerned. the case will go back to the learned subordinate judge who will decide the appeal on merits. the question of multifariousness need not be gone into. the costs in this court and in the lower courts will abide the result. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1917 (PC)

Afzal Shah and anr. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1918All425; (1918)ILR40All7

..... question the finding of law on which their suit was dismissed by the court below. the pleas in the memorandum of appeal are that the suit is not bad for multifariousness, that it was maintainable as framed and that the reliefs claimed therein could have teen granted in one suit against all the defendants. it is unnecessary for us, as the ..... , and this dismissal has been affirmed by the additional district judge in appeal. the only point dealt with by the lower appellate court was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. as a matter of fact there had been an order by the predecessor in office of the learned judge who finally disposed of the appeal, which was no doubt well .....

Tag this Judgment!


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