Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: chennai Page 1 of about 120 results (0.019 seconds)

Jan 19 1934 (PC)

S.R.M.A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar and or ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 150Ind.Cas.602; (1934)66MLJ451

..... ever suggested that the defendants would find it more convenient to be relegated to several suits. their sole object has been to defeat the suit for multifariousness, not to reconstitute it upon some more rational scheme.18. we see no reason therefore to treat defendants 4, 8, 11, 15 differently from ..... -judge records in his 96th para, that the learned advocate for the plaintiff never represented that in case the court found the suit bad for multifariousness he should have been given this opportunity. he tells us, and this is not traversed by the other side, that he directed the attention ..... years.9. substantial justice would be sacrificed to a wretched technicality. ' these citations suffice to dispel any illusion that in england dismissal on account of multifariousness is the normal course, and the indian cases are not otherwise.10. we gave the plaintiffs time to consider their position, afzal shah v. ..... himself that order 1, rule 3 is the order governing this question of multifariousness; ramendra nath roy v. brajendra nath dass i.l.r.(1917) cal. 111 has been approved and followed by our full bench in govindaraja mudaliar ..... representative is defendant 15).2. defendants 1 to 4, 8 to 12, and 15 took the plea that the suit was bad for misjoinder or multifariousness (issue 1) and the lower court finding this in their favour dismissed the suit. hence the appeal.3. the learned subordinate judge rightly directed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1934 (PC)

S.R.M.A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Annamalai Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1934Mad367

..... ever suggested that the defendants would find it more convenient to be relegated to several suits. their sole object has to defeat the suit for multifariousness, not to reconstitute it upon some more rational scheme. we see no reason therefore to treat defendants 4, 8, 11 and 15 differently from ..... no hesitation in finding that the lower court should have given the plaintiff an opportunity to elect, and if we found the suit bad for multifariousness we should have ordered to that effect.16. it remains to consider special pleas which were advanced on behalf of defendant 4, and also on ..... should in no case be allowed to be sacrificed to a wretched technicality : air1930all180 . when a court is of opinion, that a suit is bad for multifariousness, it ought to give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his plaint and to elect.... patna high court 1928 in limaye, k.v. v. j.k ..... years. substantial justice would be sacrificed to a wretched technicality.14. these citations suffice to dispel any illusion that in england dismissal on account of multifariousness is the normal course, and the indian oases are not otherwise. we gave the plaintiffs time to consider their position; afzal shah v. lachmi ..... the suit. hence the appeal. the learned surbordinate judge - rightly directed himself that order 1, rule 3 is the order governing this question of multifariousness; ramendra nath bay v. brajendra nath das a.i.r. 1918 cal. 858 has been approved and followed by our full bench in govindaraju mudaliar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 1926 (PC)

C.S. Govindaraja Mudaliar, Receiver, Sri Komaleswara Temple Properties ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1926Mad911; 97Ind.Cas.212; (1926)51MLJ194

..... privy council observed that he himself was responsible for the joinder and ought not to complain. i therefore hold that the suit is not bad for multifariousness. the order will therefore be reversed and the suit sent back for disposal according to law, and i agree with my learned brother krishnan, j.' ..... before the learned judge. he relied upon a passage in sethuratnam aiyar v. venkatachela goundan 38 m l j 476 (p c). no question of multifariousness was raised in the case. before the privy council the plaintiff himself complained that evidence relating to one item should not have been used against him for ..... relief that is claimed severally against the different defendants be in respect of the same matter, section 28, civil procedure code, will save it from the objection of multifariousness.14. in my opinion, the above sentences quoted from dampana-boyina gangi v. addala ramaswami 12 m l j 103, though strictly obiter, dicta as ..... against a number of alienees of a deceased member of an undivided family for the recovery of family property illegally alienated by him is not bad for multifari-ousness. in mahomed v. krishnan i.l.r. (1887) m 106 the suit was brought by the junior members of a tarwad against the ..... for misjoinder of parties and causes of action?' this was first argued. the learned judge held that the frame of the suit was bad for multifarious-ness and he passed an order giving leave to the plaintiff to proceed with the suit against such one of the defendants as he may choose .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1973 (HC)

K.R. Rajamanickam Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Union of India

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1974Mad375

..... may also make it clear that the conclusion of the trial court on issue no. 4, viz., whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, causes of action and multifariousness as well as on issue no.2 viz., whether the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of a portion of the freight charges, will stand and they are not liable to ..... of action and multifariousness. on issue no. 2, the learned subordinate judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled to refund of a portion of the freight charges. on issues nos. 1 and 3, the ..... to goods was due to vis major and if so whether the defendants are not liable? 4. whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, cause of action and multifariousness? 5. to what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? the learned subordinate judge found on issue no.4 that the suit was not bad for misjoinder of parties, causes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 1942 (PC)

Rao Bahadur V. Ranganathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Mariappa Mudali and o ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1943Mad386; (1943)1MLJ102

..... and consequently the appellants were compelled to file the present suit for the ejectment of the defendants.2. various defences were raised. one was that the suit was bad for multifariousness and another was that it could not be maintained because the provisions of section 11 of the madras city tenants protection act, 1921, had not been complied with. the city ..... civil court accepted the plea of the defendants that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness and dismissed it on that ground. the appellants then appealed to this court. the appeal was heard by patanjali sastri, j., who disagreed with the opinion of the trial judge ..... that the suit was bad for multifariousness, but he dismissed the appeal because he considered that the plea based on section 11 of the madras city tenants protection act was well founded. this appeal is from the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1948 (PC)

Cherukur China Venkatasubba Naidu and ors. Vs. Kandadi Sundara Varadac ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad12

..... rights declared to several items of property detailed in plaint schedule a. after issues were framed, the district munsif in a considered order found that the plaint was bad for multifariousness and misjoinder of parties so far as plaint schedule a lands were concerned. the petitioners all sought the same relief as regards schedule. b lands holding that they were lands ..... enjoyed in common. the learned district munsif found that the suit was not bad as regards schedule. b either for multifariousness or for misjoinder.2. the plaint is interesting and has been keenly argued before me. mr. kuppuswami for the petitioners contends that the pleadings raise in question a common issue ..... are entitled to the injunction prayed for ?(7) whether the plaintiffs can ask for injunction without claiming possession of schedule b lands; and(8) whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and is liable to be dismissed on that ground ?4. the plaint was filed under the provisions of order 1, rule 1 which permits all persons to join in a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1935 (PC)

Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar and or ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1935)69MLJ497

..... to have the earliest opportunity to repel such a disgraceful charge, and not to seek a further opportunity of having the claim against them dismissed on the technical plea of multifariousness. this natural attitude is not the attitude adopted by the petitioners in these petitions.7. no case has been brought to our notice in which leave to appeal to his ..... an appeal from the decree of the subordinate judge of devakotta dated 7th november, 1932, dismissing o.s. no. 109 of 1930 on his file on the preliminary ground of multifariousness or misjoinder of defendants and of causes of action. in appeal this court held that there was no such misjoinder and remanded the suit to the original court for disposal ..... majesty in council has been granted from an order deciding a point of procedure like a plea of multifariousness. in the present case the plea of multifariousness is moreover devoid of any real substance; persistence in such a plea deserves no encouragement. it is no doubt open to us under clause (c) of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1947 (PC)

Bhagavatula Pankala Rao Vs. Kadiyala Venkatasubbayya

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1947)2MLJ337

..... suit decided that the suit was bad for misjoinder or for multifariousness and put the plaintiff to his election. the material seems to indicate that the plaintiff clearly anticipated failure because of the objection taken in the written statement and met that ..... one which would be un-objectionable ; but that he had been bound to elect as a result of the court's decision that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness. it seems to me that there are no such facts in the present case and there is nothing in the evidence to show that the court which heard the prior ..... , j., in gurubhotlu v. jogayya (1935) 42 l.w. 256. that was a case filed against the two sets of defendants. there was an objection taken on the ground of multifariousness. on this objection being taken the plaintiff himself admitted that the objection was good and elected to proceed against one set of defendants, the other defendants being given up and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1935 (PC)

Annamalai Chettiar Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1936Mad311

..... to have the earliest opportunity to repel such a disgraceful charge, and not to seek a further opportunity of having the claim against them dismissed on the technical plea of multifariousness. this natural attitude is not the attitude adopted by the petitioners in these petitions.7. no case has been brought to our notice in which leave to appeal to his ..... an appeal from the decree of the subordinate judge of devakotta dated 7th november 1932 dismissing o.s. no. 109 of 1930 on his file on the preliminary ground of 'multifariousness' or misjoinder of defendants and of causes of action. in appeal this court held that there was no such misjoinder and remanded the suit to the original court for disposal ..... majesty in privy council has been granted from an order deciding a point of procedure like a plea of multifariousness. in the present case the plea of multifariousness is moreover devoid of any real substance; persistence in such a plea deserved no encouragement. it is no doubt open to us under clause (c) of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 26 1921 (PC)

Bolisetti Mamayya Vs. Kolla Kottayya, Kommurri Ramayya Rice Mill Compa ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1921Mad616; (1921)ILR44Mad810

..... the petition to find out whether the objection of multifarionsness is sustainable. in the present case, on the allegations in the creditor's petition as it stands, the objection of multifariousness cannot be sustained. that ground of appeal is therefore rejected.9. now, as regards the two other contentions the learned district judge, as pointed out already, might have distinctly stated ..... of inconvenience should not be given too much weight. as i stated, the test is whether if the application was treated as a suit, that suit would be bad for multifariousness, that is, for misjoinder of different causes of action against different defendants. if no such objection can be successfully advanced a single application is, in my opinion, maintainable in that .....

Tag this Judgment!


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