Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Page 8 of about 1,538 results (0.002 seconds)

Sep 01 1959 (HC)

Joseph Alias Kochu Vs. Makkaru Pillai

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1960Ker127

..... stated, as a general rule, that where substantial common questions of fact are involved in different claims against different parties, their joinder in one suit will not be regarded as multifarious.'20. in these circumstances we must repel the contention and hold that the suit is not bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action.21. the third contention also ..... plaintiff.' (c. p. c., 6th edition, vol. 2, page 1899.)17. under the practice of the old court of chancery, a bill of complaint was open to a demurrer for multifariousness- when it attempted to embrace too many objects or causes of suit. the current provision which permits the joinder of defendants is order 1, rule 3 of the code of ..... 47(1) of the code of civil procedure, 1908, as contended by the appellants before us.15. the second contention of the appellants is that the suit is bad for multifariousness. the allegation in the plaint is :(passage in malaya lam omitted}.it is admitted that these allegations are sufficient to sustain the plaint, the contention is that the lower court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1953 (HC)

In Re: D. Lakshminarayana Chettiar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1954Mad594; (1954)IMLJ403

..... a deceased member of an undivided family for the recovery of family property illegally alienated by him. it was argued that the suit should be dismissed on the ground of multifariousness. in dealing with that argument, the learned judges held that:'it is most desirable that the whole of the alienations should be at once before the court called upon to ..... the same cause of action.'we cannot agree with the learned judges that the cause of action is the same, though such a suit would not now be bad for multifariousness, by reason of order 1, rule 3, civil p. c.48. in 'gangi v. ramaswami', 12 mad lj 103 (z.7), bhashyam aiyangar j. struck a different note which is .....

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!

Feb 02 1906 (PC)

Jaggeswar Dutt Vs. Bhuban Mohan Mitra

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal425

..... the mortgage and setting up a title 'paramount to that of the mortgagor and mortgagee, are sought to be investigated, is open to objection on the ground of misjoinder and multifariousness.10. under sections 44 and 45 of our civil procedure code there cannot be joinder of causes of action of this description see sarada sundari v. sarada prosad (1904) 2 c.l ..... party and litigate and settle his rights in that case.' the reason assigned was that a suit so framed would be open to objection on the grounds of misjoinder and multifariousness (see story on equity pleadings, 10th edition, section 230), where it is stated on high authority that no person need be made a party to a suit, who claims under ..... dismissed from the mortgage suit, their lordships observed that, if the defendants, who alleged paramount titles in themselves, had been allowed to remain as parties, the suit would have been multifarious and confused in the highest degree, if it had gone on in that shape, as the defence raised was quite foreign to a mortgage suit. in a subsequent passage, while .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1935 (PC)

Anjaneya Sastri Vs. Kothandapani Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1936Mad449; (1937)2MLJ437

..... as well as the adjoining vacant land constituted the endowment. as to the point of law, the reference to it in issue 4 as an objection on the ground of 'multifariousness' is not accurate, because no relief has been claimed against defendants 2 and 3 on any independent cause of action. appellant's learned counsel therefore urged the objection only as ..... misjoinder he held that as defendants 2 and 3 claimed right to the suit property they were necessary parties to the suit and that the suit was not bad for multifariousness. two questions have been argued in this appeal on behalf of defendant 3; (1) on the merits, that the learned judge should have held that a trust within the meaning .....

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!

Sep 30 1977 (HC)

Babu RajnaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Ganesh Bind and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1978All30

..... defendants entitled to special costs ?6. to what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled 7. the trial court held that suit no. 27 of 1945 was not bad for multifariousness and that the applicants therein were agriculturists and entitled to maintain the action under section 12 of the u. p. agriculturists relief act. the said court also held that despite .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 2002 (HC)

Kailash Chand Singhal Vs. Sri Krishna Janam Asthan

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC491

..... evidence and documentary evidence brought on record. it was found that the notice terminating the tenancy was perfect and valid in law. the plea that the suit was bad for multifariousness of causes of action was also negatived. the trial court further came to the conclusion that the accommodation/building in suit had to be taken to fall outside the purview .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 2004 (HC)

Bachoo Lal and ors. Vs. Vishnu Sharma (Decd.) by L.R. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC2384

..... issues were framed by the trial court :-'(1) whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10/151, c.p.c.?(2) whether the suit is bad for multifariousness?(3) whether the suit is undervalued and court fee paid is insufficient?(4) whether the plaintiff is the owner of the land in suit as alleged in paras 1a, 8 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1963 (HC)

Hadu Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1964Ori159

..... a cause of action against another plaintiff in respect of another land. the learned subordinate judge took a correct view in holding that the suit is bad on account of multifariousness. air 1928 cal 92 is clearly distinguishable on facts as both the plaintiffs interested in different plots of land inducted the same sets of tenants who claim similar rights against .....

Tag this Judgment!

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