Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: karnataka Page 1 of about 39 results (0.039 seconds)

May 31 1972 (HC)

P.G. Venkataswamy and ors. Vs. Mir Zahid HussaIn Saheb (Sha) and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1973Kant145; AIR1973Mys145

..... error, defect or irregularity inany proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court'it is not shown that on account of multifariousness the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the trial court are affected. we do not. therefore, find sufficient reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the ..... from multifariousness. the properties involved in this case are immovable properties. defendants 2 and 3 are interested in item 1, defendant 7 is interested in item 2 and defendant 9 is interested ..... by the defendants who are appellants before us,18. sri s.k. venkataranga iyengar the learned counsel for defendant 3, submitted that the suit has to fail on account of multifariousness and that defendant 3 had perfected her title by adverse possession to item 1 of the plaint schedule. it is no doubt true that the plaint in this case suffers ..... . precludes an appellate court from interfering with the judgment and decree passed by a trial court on the ground that the suit is vitiated on account of multifariousness unless it is shown that such multifariousness has resulted in failure of justice. it reads:'no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1991 (HC)

Syed Abdul Jabbar Vs. Board of Wakfs

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1991KAR1628

..... of the allegations and contentions are not quite necessary. the trial court framed as many as eight issues and among them was the issue whether the suit is bad for multifariousness on which it gave a finding in the affirmative. on issue no. 1 however it gave a finding in favour of the plaintiffs that they are the chief muzawars. it ..... section 80 c.p.c. and one of the requirements of the notice is the relief which the plaintiff claims. the trial court found that the suit is bad for multifariousness and we do not propose to express any opinion with regard to this part of observation of the trial court as we are now disposing of the appeal only on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1966 (HC)

Laxmibai Vs. Madhankar Vinayak Kulkarni and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1968Kant82; AIR1968Mys82; (1967)1MysLJ27

..... of law and fact, and would incidentally affect the properties which happen to be situated both within cuttack and kendrapare jurisdictions. the suit, as framed, was therefore not bad for multifariousness and was maintainable in cuttack court under section 17 read with o.1 r.3.'(17) to the same effect is the full bench decision of the nagpur high court ..... a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of the suit property is situate.(16) it is then contended by mr. joshi that the suit is bad for multifariousness, i.e., for having joined different causes of action in the same suit. he contends that the cause of action in relation to kowad property is quite different from the ..... jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same is not bad for multifariousness.(8) on the other hand, mr. mandgi appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff contends that the court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, thus supporting the findings of the ..... situate in the state of maharashtra so as to make the decision binding on the subject of the state of maharashtra, he also contended that the suit is bad for multifariousness in that different causes of action have been combined together to claim relief against various defendants and therefore the learned munsiff was in error in holding that he had the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1962 (HC)

Onkareppa Wasappa Koloor Vs. Rachappa Gurushantappa Jagalalli and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1963Mys159; ILR1962KAR809

..... to insist upon the plaintiff bringing two separate sets of suit for that purpose which would only result in dilatoriness and delay. in my opinion, far from there being any multifariousness in the suit, it is the order of the court below which will result in multiplicity of proceedings.9. this revision petition is allowed, the order made by the court ..... confine his suit to only some of the reliefs prayed for by him, and be asked this direction to be made on the ground that the suit is bad for multifariousness.4. what was urged before the court below was that the suit in so far as it asked for the eviction of defendant 4 was based on the provisions of ..... ordera.r. somnath iyer, j.1. whether the plaintiff's suit is bad for multifariousness is the question which arises in this revision petition which is presented by the plaintiff.2. the property which is the subject-matter of the suit in the court below .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1991 (HC)

Syed Abdul Jabbar and Others Vs. the Board of Wakfs in Karnataka and O ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1992Kant43; 1991(2)KarLJ42

..... of the allegations and contentions are not quite necessary. the trial court framed as many as eight issues and among them was the issue whether the suit is bad for multifarious ness on which it gave a finding in the affirmative. on issue no. 1 however it gave a finding in favour of the plaintiffs that they are the chief muzawars ..... s. 80, c.p.c. and one of the requirements of the notice is the relief which the plaintiff claims. the trial court found that the suit is bad for multifariousness and we do not propose to express any opinion with regard to this part of observation of the trial court as we are now disposing of the appeal only on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 1990 (HC)

M.R. Rajasekharappa Vs. H.N. Siddananjappa

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1990KAR2303

..... the properties mentioned in para 11 of the written statement and para 4 of the reply?12. is the suit barred by adverse possession?13. is the suit bad for multifariousness as contended in para 21 of the written statement?14. is the suit barred by time?15. are the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs sought?16. what order?7. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 1950 (HC)

Puttamma Vs. Veerabhadra Mudaliar and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1951Kant22; AIR1951Mys22

..... . no. 65/49-50, however, defendant-appellant 1 complained that the lower court erred in not giving findings on all the issues and in not noticing the defects as to multifariousness and jurisdiction. the learned additional subordinate judge heard both the appeals together. he set aside the judgment of the munsiff and remanded the case to him for fresh disposal according .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2012 (HC)

The Jamia Masjid Vs. K.V. Rudrappa and Others

Court : Karnataka

..... proceeding in which the estoppel is raised, or their privies, or that the decision was conclusive in rem. 22. the principle of resjudicata is founded on public policy to prevent multifariousness of legal proceedings between the same parties. this doctrine is based on two factors namely; (i) judicial decisions has to reach finality and end in conclusiveness resulting intermination of disputes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2009 (HC)

Shappa Alias Ishwarappa Vs. Kalakappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2009(6)KarLJ301

..... judicata?8. whether the defendant proves that the court fee paid is insufficient?9. whether the defendant proves that the suit is hit by misjoinder of causes of action and multifariousness?10. whether the suit is not maintainable without bringing the suit for cancellation of gift deed dated 25-10-1957 and the judgment and decree in o.s. no. 96 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 2005 (HC)

Ramesh Chandra Lahoti and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secre ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2005KAR4030; 2006(6)KarLJ102

..... act, from time to time whenever the need and necessity arisen. by these amendments the scope and the activities of the institutions under the act went on expanding and embracing multifarious activities relating to marketing of agricultural produce. despite all this development studies on the working of regulated markets suggest that they are not free from limitations and are yet to ..... , transport, packaging, market information and channels of distribution. thus by amendment act no. 43 of 1976, the scope and ambit of the act 1966 is enlarged and expanded by embracing multifarious activities concerning the farmer and marketing of his agricultural produce.22. chapter xi of the act, 1966 provides for establishment of state agricultural marketing board section 111 of the act ..... india. originally the regulated markets brought the producer and buyer face to face to buy and sell commercial crops only. today the marketing act and rules framed thereunder provides for multifarious activities. the supreme court of india in bhagwan dasssood v. state of h.p and ors., : air1997sc1549 summed up the marketing activities as under:-'35. by a series of decisions .....

Tag this Judgment!


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