Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: andhra pradesh Page 1 of about 77 results (0.021 seconds)

Oct 09 1998 (HC)

Kantamani Seeta Ramachandra Rao and Others Vs. Meesana Mohana Rao and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1999(1)ALD177; 1999(1)ALT154

..... . the trial court settled the following issues for trial:1. whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale; 2. whether suit is bad for multifariousness; and 3. whether the suit is barred by time. the plaintiff got himself examined as pw1 and got marked exs.al to a7. the 1st defendant got himself examined as ..... . on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record the trial court held that the suit is not barred by time, that the suit is not bad of multifariousness and that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the suit agreement with respect to item no.1 only. the trial court held that the time is not the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 2005 (HC)

Gudapati Seetharamaiah @ Seetharama Rao and ors. Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(2)ALD144

..... action against another plaintiff in respect of another land. it was further held that the learned subordinate judge took a correct view that the suit is bad on account of multifariousness. however, it was observed that the learned subordinate judge should have given the plaintiffs election as to which the single plaintiff would be permitted to continue the suit and which ..... establish that they have perfected their title by adverse possession.23. before adverting to the question as to whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder of multifarious causes of action, it is necessary to have a glance at order ii rule 3 cpc, which reads as under:joinder of causes of action :(1) save as otherwise provided ..... this court to remit the matter to the trial court, since the finding of the trial court on issue no. 7 that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of multifariousness, does not suffer from any infirmity.27. the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2002 (HC)

V.K. Ferro Alloys (Private) Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh a ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD10; 2003(2)ALT620

..... dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of plaintiffs appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder of parties or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was baldy framed, or on the ground of technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2008 (HC)

Avala Raja Reddy Vs. Gunti Radha Krishnaiah Chetty

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(2)ALT70

..... pat. 613, the parties having gone to trial on an issue of title on the merits; defendants were not allowed to succeed in appeal on the contention that there was multifariousness. it is settled law that where paramount title has been adjudicated on, in a mortgage or redemption suit the defeated party will not be allowed to raise the contention that ..... be a joinder of causes of action of this description, and in sarala sundari v. sarada prasad (1904) 12 c.l.j. 602 the ground of decision was thai such multifariousness was fatal to the suit.but even under the old code it was recognized that this general rule was subject to exceptions, and in the code of 1908 the rule ..... inconvenience and expense caused to the defendants. the written statement of the present appellants (as is common in india) contained a plea that the suit was bad for misjoinder or multifariousness, but their lordships have not been satisfied, that at any time before the commencement of the trial any appropriate and serious application was made to the court upon the face .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 2001 (HC)

Goparaju Venkata Bharata Rao and anr. Vs. Nagula Ramakotayya and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2001AP425

..... . under those circumstances, the trial court rightly held that issue in favour of the plaintiff.21. with regard to the issue of maintainability of the suit on the ground of multifariousness, though the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement against the appellants-defendants 1 and 2, and also the relief of recovery of possession ..... this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the agreement, whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and multifariousness.17. with regard to the issue of maintainability the trial court considered the circumstances with regard to the dismissal of the injunction suit i.e. withdrawal of the suit filed ..... will is in the custody of kopparthi yegyanna. the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also bad for mis-joinder of cause of action i.e. multifariousness. the plaintiff is therefore guilty of laches. therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of specific performance of the suit and the suit is barred by time.9. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1958 (HC)

Sajjanam Wadla China Rajayya Vs. Chappal Venkateshwar Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959AP349

..... to bring fresh suits, as has been the case in 'the three authorities cited by the advocate for the defendants. when the court insisted that the suit was bad for multifariousness, the pleader for the plaintiff merely expressed his willingness to continue the suit as against the 2nd defendant,thereupon the court did not order the suit to 'be withdrawn but ..... two sets of defendants for recovery of money due to him by the defendants on babi khata accounts.a preliminary objection was taken to the plaint on the ground of multifariousness. the trial court expressed the opinion that the defect in the frame of the suit was there and actually ordered that the plaintiff should elect as to which of the ..... remaining, names. the plaintiff is given time of three days to produce fresh plaints.'there is no controversy that if the trial judge had dismissed the suit as framed, for multifarious ness and the plaintiff had brought fresh separate suits against each of the defendants, he would not have been handicapped by the provisions of rule 2, of order 23, order ..... the principal debtor.5. it would thus be seen that their lordships were dealing with a case which was properly constituted as originally framed and in which' no question of multifariousness was involved. had it been allowed to proceed as such it might have resulted iii a decree against the four trustees or any of them. the plaintiffs by having their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 2004 (HC)

Bandaru Ramana and ors. Vs. Gedela Appalanaidu Alias Naidubabu and ors ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2004(6)ALD413; 2004(6)ALT500

..... , but not the suit properties, which she parted even by 1943. with regard to all other issues viz., whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction; whether the suit is bad for multifariousness etc, the trial court answered all other issues in affirmative. however, as the main issue was answered in favour of the defendants, the trial court ultimately considering the decisions cited ..... dated 10.4.1973 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs? 4. whether this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to maintain this suit? 5. whether this suit is bad for multifariousness? 6. whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the plaint schedule land? 7. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to profits as to what amount? 8. to what relief?14 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2005 (HC)

Chowdri Kalyan Chand and ors. Vs. V.R. Dwarknath and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(1)ALD583; 2006(1)ALT215

..... two or more causes of action accrued against the defendants separately when such defendants are not jointly liable is bad for misjoinder of defendants and causes of action, technically called multifariousness. in a suit of contract, strangers to such contract who have distinct and separate interests cannot be joined as defendants rangayya v. subramanya air 1918 mad. 681 (f.b.).25 ..... of calcutta v. radhakrishna : air1952cal222 , the calcutta high court held that a single suit by a corporation for arrears of rent against different owners of subdivided premises is bad for multifariousness.15. where two or more persons have been joined as defendants in one suit in contravention of the provisions of order 1 rule 3, there is misjoinder of defendants.16 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2001 (HC)

Potnuru Lakshmana Rao Vs. Potnuru Babu Rao (Died) Per Lrs.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(3)ALD520

..... was filed belatedly. it is now well settled principle of law that the applications for amendment of plaint are to be considered liberally having regard to the fact that thereby multifariousness of the proceedings would be avoided. in the circumstances, and following the judgments discussed supra, i do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. moreover, if the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 2000 (HC)

K. Chinna Biddamma Vs. J. Krishnama Naidu and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(1)ALD304; 2001(1)ALT342

..... at a belated stage but now, it is well settled principles of law that the applications for amendment of plaint are considered liberally having regard to the fact that thereby multifariousness of the proceedings would be avoided. the declaration of title sought for by the plaintiff, even according to the learned court below, could be decided in the suit for permanent .....

Tag this Judgment!


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