Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1980Bom213; 1980MhLJ725
..... suit several causes of actionagainst the same defendants jointly. ithink, that submission is correct. i holdthat in view of this position the suit cannot be said to be barred by multifarious-ness.17. one more contention that was raised on behalf of the defendants was that three pieces of lands were mortgaged under three mortgages. the pieces of lands so mortgaged ..... way, i would proceed to see whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by multifariousness. admittedly, the mortgagee in respect of thethree mortgages was the same. it is truethat the three pieces of lands were mortgaged by three different persons. however, on the facts found ..... of the defendants that one suit for three mortgages was not maintainable as the mortgagors were not common. it appears that the contention that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by multifariousness, was pot taken up in the lower appellate court. the only question canvassed before the lower appellate court was with regard to the adverse possession claimed by the defendants. any ..... the said lands. the defendants' contention that they had become the owners of the suit land by adverse possession was upheld. their further contention that the suit was barred by multifariousness was also upheld. in view of these findings, the learned trial judge held that the plaintiffs were not entitled for redemption and possession of the suit land and that therefore .....Tag this Judgment!
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!
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!
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!
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!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1947Bom255; (1946)48BOMLR795
..... of action whose inclusion in the same suit resulted in multifariousness. when the plaintiffs elected to proceed with one cause of action only, the defendant who was then defendant no. 6, had nothing to do with that cause of action, and ..... plaintiffs were obliged to give up the defendant and the claim made against him, in obedience to the finding of the court that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness. the election to proceed with one cause of action against one set of defendants did not in such a case amount to the withdrawal or abandonment of the other causes ..... of the deposits said to have been made in ms shop by deceased deoram-the very relief asked for in the present suit. as such u suit was bad for multifariousness, the plaintiffs were called upon to elect, and they gave a purshis confining it to their claim against defendants nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 13. as the suit .....Tag this Judgment!
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!
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1981Ori216; 52(1981)CLT431
..... day in favour of plaintiffs and since then the plaintiffs are in possession of those lands. the defendant in the written statement has stated that the suit is bad for multifariousness. the lower appellate court has relied on the decision in hadu sahu v. state of orissa, air 1964 orissa 159 and has held that the suit is not maintainable. in ..... . each of the plaintiffs set up a claim to a parcel of land in which the other plaintiffs were not interested. it was held that the suit was bad for multifariousness. there was misjoinder of plaintiffs because each plaintiff had separately to prove his own possession for more than sixty years and there was no common question of fact or law ..... the defendant is challenged and all the plaintiffs are aggrieved by such action of the defendant, they can file one suit and such a suit will not be bit by multifariousness. as has been held by the patna high court if the defendant does not make any challenge in the trial court as to the ..... multifariousness and allows a decree to be passed and if the decree does not affect the suit on merits in that case it would be deemed that be has waived. the .....Tag this Judgment!
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!
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!