Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Sorted by: old Court: allahabad Page 1 of about 108 results (0.006 seconds)

Jan 04 1907 (PC)

Mahmud Fatima and anr. Vs. Parbati Kunwar and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1907)ILR29All267

..... the learned judges in this expression of their view of the law. we may also refer with approval to two decisions in this high court in which the question of multifariousness was considered. the one is that of indar kuar v. gur prasad (1888) i.l.r., 11 all., 33 and the other the case of mazhar all khan v. sajjad ..... the landlord, and having obtained possession, was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants in collusion with the landlord, the defence of the defendants mainly was that the suit was bad for multifariousness inasmuch as they were severally in possession of distinct and definite portions of the land, under different demises, and that there was no community of interest between them. in delivering ..... their father to recover their shares of his property, and that that cause of action accrued to them upon their father's death. if the authorities on the question of multifariousness are conflicting, two decisions of the calcutta high court commend themselves to us: one is in the case of ishun chunder hazra v. rameshwar mondol (1897) i.l.r., 24 ..... ground of appeal we are concluded by the finding of fact of the lower appellate court.5. the next question is whether or not the claim of the plaintiffs is multifarious. both the lower courts have held that it was not so. the claim, it is to be observed, is for the recovery from parties in possession, said to be wrongfully .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1908 (PC)

Kubra Jan Vs. Ram Bali and anr.

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!

Apr 16 1910 (PC)

Kunwar Gobind Krishn NaraIn and anr. Vs. Musammat Sirjunnissa Begam

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!

Apr 28 1914 (PC)

Bal Krishna Das Vs. Hira Lal Bagla and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1914All393; (1914)ILR36All406

..... same lady. these transfers he alleges to be null and void as against his interest. there were various defences, among them being the plea that the suit was bad for multifariousness. during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 came to terms. under the compromise that house which was transferred to defendants 3 and 4 and ..... 2. on the basis of this compromise the court below gave the plaintiff a decree as against defendant 1 and 2, but it held that the suit was bad for multifariousness and it called upon the plaintiff to elect as to the portion of his suit with which he would proceed. the plaintiff declined to elect, and so the court below ..... civil procedure, the point is covered by the clear language of order i, rule 3. under that order it is clear that the plaintiff's suit was not bad for multifariousness and be was entitled to join all the defendants as parties to the suit so as to enable him to recover his share in the whole of the estate of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1914 (PC)

Balkrishna Das Vs. Kunwar Hira Lal Bagla and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 24Ind.Cas.95

..... same lady. these transfers he alleged to be null and void as against his interest. there were various defences, among them being the plea that the suit was had for multifariousness. during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff and defendants nos. 1 and 2 came to terms. under the compromise that house which was transferred to defendants nos. 3 and ..... . on the basis of this compromise the court below gave the plaintiff a decree as against defendants nos. 1 and 2, but it held that the suit was had for multifariousness and it called upon the plaintiff to elect as to the portion of his suit with which he would proceed. the plaintiff declined to elect and so the court below ..... civil procedure, the point is covered by the clear language of order i, rule 3. under that order it is clear that the plaintiff's suit was not had for multifariousness and he was entitled to join all the defendants as parties to the suit so as to enable him to recover his share in the whole of the estate of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1917 (PC)

Afzal Shah and anr. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1918All425; (1918)ILR40All7

..... question the finding of law on which their suit was dismissed by the court below. the pleas in the memorandum of appeal are that the suit is not bad for multifariousness, that it was maintainable as framed and that the reliefs claimed therein could have teen granted in one suit against all the defendants. it is unnecessary for us, as the ..... , and this dismissal has been affirmed by the additional district judge in appeal. the only point dealt with by the lower appellate court was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. as a matter of fact there had been an order by the predecessor in office of the learned judge who finally disposed of the appeal, which was no doubt well .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1917 (PC)

Saiyed Afzal Shah and anr. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 42Ind.Cas.856

..... question the finding of law on which their suit was dismissed by the court below. the pleas in the memorandum of appeal are that the suit is not bad for multifariousness, that it was maintainable as framed and that the reliefs claimed therein could have been granted in one suit against all the defendants it is unnecessary for us, as the ..... this dismissal has been affirmed by the additional district judge in appeal.2. the only point dealt with by the lower appellate court was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. as a matter of fact there had been an order by the predecessor in office of the learned judge who finally disposed of the appeal, which was no doubt well .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1928 (PC)

Gauri Shankar Vs. Keshab Deo and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1929All148; 114Ind.Cas.881

..... questions of fact which arose in each case would have been considered separately and threshed out in detail. the plaintiff, however, has chosen to bring one multifarious suit, and the allegations in the plaint, even after they were supplemented by his application dated 9th july 1923, were by no means specific or ..... not decreed. it is, therefore, not possible for us to dismiss the suit in appeal on the preliminary ground that it is bad for multifariousness.5. in his plaint the plaintiff admitted that a firm styled sham lal gokul chand was started about 1860 at hathras and another one was opened ..... defendants was very inconvenient and embarrassing. but now that the whole evidence has been recorded it is too late for us to consider the defect of multifariousness, as under section 99, civil p.c., an appellate court cannot interfere on this ground unless the defect has affected the merits of the ..... denial that the plaintiff had in any way been prejudiced. several defendants also took the plea that the suit was bad for multifariousness inasmuch as numerous causes of action had been wrongly jointed together.3. the learned subordinate judge framed several issues including the one as to the ..... question of multifariousness. unfortunately he postponed the decision of the last mentioned issue till all the evidence had been recorded and then summarily disposed of it, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1929 (PC)

Shyam Behari Mal Vs. Maha Prasad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1930All180

..... be provided against the evil arising from multifariousness of suits which generally result in waste of time and waste of money. unless the joinder of parties and causes of action are calculated to ..... to dismiss the suit. substantial justice should in no case be allowed to be sacrificed to a wretched technicality. even where the defect of multifariousness is patent on the face of the pleadings the plea cannot be entertained unless it was raised at the earliest possible opportunity. safeguards have to ..... of the case, a remand was neither necessary nor desirable.19. the lower appellate court is emphatic in its pronouncement that 'there undoubtedly is multifariousness in the suit.' this finding has been vehemently assailed by the appellant before this court but there can be no doubt as to its correctness. ..... lower appellate court but there was no adjudication of the issues raised.16. the lower appellate court held that the suit was bad for multifariousness and that having regard to the constitution of the action the suit could not proceed in the form in which it was brought and that ..... property has been transferred to him.13. the lower appellate court was not justified in narrowing down the point under enquiry to the plea of multifariousness. where the settlor is possessed of property which has not been either gifted or endowed, the donee of the property cannot be held to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 1930 (PC)

Mithai and ors. Vs. Hasan Ali and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1930All863; 128Ind.Cas.827

..... a second and subsequent suit. in our opinion the learned subordinate judge ought to have acceded to the request of the respondents' counsel that he should ignore the plea of multifariousness raised by the defendants themselves and ought to have tried the case on the merits. it is not suggested that either of the parties have suffered on the merits by ..... the result the learned munsif dismissed the suit. it is to be noted that in the order dismissing the suit he does not give multifariousness as one of the reasons for the order that he was passing.3. on appeal by the plaintiffs the learned subordinate judge started by saying that the munsif decided the ..... munsif framed eight issues and he decided all of them. he found that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. he found that the suit was bad for multifariousness and he found that most of the buildings on the site were more than 12 years old. he also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages. in ..... remand so far as the aforesaid four persons are concerned. the case will go back to the learned subordinate judge who will decide the appeal on merits. the question of multifariousness need not be gone into. the costs in this court and in the lower courts will abide the result. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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