Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: allahabad Year: 1914 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.005 seconds)

Apr 28 1914 (PC)

Bal Krishna Das Vs. Hira Lal Bagla and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-28-1914

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!

Apr 28 1914 (PC)

Balkrishna Das Vs. Kunwar Hira Lal Bagla and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-28-1914

Reported in : 24Ind.Cas.95

..... same lady. these transfers he alleged to be null and void as against his interest. there were various defences, among them being the plea that the suit was had for multifariousness. during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff and defendants nos. 1 and 2 came to terms. under the compromise that house which was transferred to defendants nos. 3 and ..... . on the basis of this compromise the court below gave the plaintiff a decree as against defendants nos. 1 and 2, but it held that the suit was had 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 had for multifariousness and he 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!


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