Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Sorted by: old Court: kolkata Page 1 of about 109 results (0.006 seconds)

Jul 07 1876 (PC)

Treeporasoondery Dossee Vs. Debendronath Tagore

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal45

..... came on to be heard before me in settlement of issues, and debendro and ganendro set up three principal grounds why the suit should be dismissed: 1st, that it is multifarious; 2nd, that the plaintiff has no right to sue in respect of any of the matters complained of by her; and 3rd, that the plaintiff is barred by limitation and ..... plaintiff had, in fact, any right or interest under the deed of settlement, and having regard to the wider and more liberal view latterly taken with respect to objection for multifariousness, as shown in the cases of pointon v. pointon l.r. 12 eq. 537 and coates v. legard l.e. 19 eq. 56. i should not have been disposed to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1881 (PC)

Soodist Lall Vs. Bungsee Singh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1881)ILR7Cal739

..... rights and interests of the parties actually before it.' we are of opinion, that the two sections which have just been quoted, are a sufficient answer to the objection of multifariousness raised upon this appeal.6. then, with reference to the third objection, the mortgage-bond was executed in favour of the plaintiff alone. if this were not the case, there ..... not valid to affect the property in the bhagalpore court, and it is not necessary for us to say anything further upon this point. the second point is concerned with multifariousness, and in order to understand how far this objection can be sustained in connection with the present case, we must bear distinctly in mind what are the exact facts.5 ..... , and therefore the decree of the 17th july 1874 is not valid so as to affect the bhagalpore property.3. the second point is, that the suit is bad for multifariousness, inasmuch as the first set of defendants and the second set of defendants are interested not jointly, but severally, and in respect of separate portions of the property. the third .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1882 (PC)

Opnit Misser and ors. Vs. NaraIn Roy

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1883)ILR9Cal304

..... the ground of multifariousness, yet the defendants were not prejudiced thereby. they further held that as the defendants had held the land in dispute as tenants from 1265 (1858-59), limitation could not be ..... . two special appeals were preferred to this court, and it was urged on behalf of the (defendants) appellants that the suits should have been dismissed both on the grounds of multifariousness as well as of limitation.5. a division bench of this court decreed these appeals. the learned judges were of opinion that, although the suit, as framed, was bad on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1886 (PC)

Loke Nath Surma and ors. Vs. Keshab Ram Doss and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal147

mcdonell and beverley, jj.1. the circumstances of this case are fully net out in the decision of the lower appellate court.2. it is contended in second appeal that the district judge is wrong in law :(1) in dismissing the suit on the ground that different causes of action against different defendants separately have been joined together; and (2) in holding that a suit for a mere declaration of title without further relief is not maintainable under section 42 of the specific belief act.3. in deciding the first point, the judge has relied upon the full bench decision of the allahabad high court in the case of narsing das v. mdhgal dabi i.l.r. 5 all. 163 in which it was held that, where several distinct causes of action are alleged against distinct acts of defendants who are not jointly liable in respect of each and all of such causes of action, a suit against all the defendants jointly is bad in law.4. in the present case, however, it is contended that the cause of action alleged against all the defendants is one and the same, viz., a conspiracy on the part of all the defendants to keep the plaintiffs out of possession of their property; and we have been referred to the case of gajadhur pershad narain singh v. saheb roy 19 w.r. 203 where a number of ryots were held to have been properly sued in one and the same suit, on the allegation that they had fraudulently used a forged jamabandi paper with the view to support certain mokurari claims which they put forward, and thereby to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1886 (PC)

Gowri Prosad Kundu and ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Sircar and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal159

mcdonell and beverley, jj.1. on appeal the additional judge held that the suit was not barred by limitation, but that it was bad on the second ground.against this latter finding, the plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal' and the respondents seek to uphold the decree of the lower appellate court on the ground of limitation. it is contended that they are not at liberty to do this, not having given notice to the other side under the provisions of section 561 of the code; but we think that, under the terms of that section, it was not necessary to give the appellants notice.2. the judge has disposed of the question of limitation, relying on the authority of the case of ram kishan v. bhawani dass i.l.r. 1 all. 333; but the circumstances of that case were different from those of the present, and the decision is, therefore, not applicable. in that case it was held that a suit to recover the sale proceeds paid away under an order of the judge, which was made without jurisdiction, was not a suit to set aside that order, inasmuch as the order itself was a nullity. but in the present case the order of distribution was made by a. court fully competent to make it, and was a good order until set aside.3. moreover, it is not easy to see how any relief could be granted to the plaintiffs without setting aside that order, and in fact the plaintiffs, virtually ask to have it set aside, because they ask as an alternative prayer in their plaint that, if they are found to be not entitled to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1887 (PC)

Durga Dasi and ors. Vs. Sudhendu Mohun Roy and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1887)ILR14Cal435

..... tenants held the lands under different sets of defend ants, that is to say, that they had no community of interest. he accordingly held that the suits were bad for multifariousness and dismissed them.3. in appeal, the district judge considered that no inconvenience would he caused to defendants by the suits being tried in the form in which they were ..... different titles, and the defendants also disputed the correctness of the survey maps on which the plaintiffs relied.2. in the first court, the only issue tried was that of multifariousness, and in order to ascertain the exact position of the parties, an amin was directed to ascertain and show on a map the lands claimed by the plaintiff's and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 1887 (PC)

Ram NaraIn Dut Vs. Annoda Prosad Joshi and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1887)ILR14Cal682

1. this is an appeal against the subordinate judge of burdwan reversing the decree of the munsif in favour of the plaintiff and dismissing the suit on account of misjoinder of several causes of action. for the appellant it contended that the lower appellate court was wrong in holding that the suit was liable to be dissmissed for such misjoinder.it was contended that there was no misjoinder, and it was contended that, if there was misjoinder, then insamuch as the first court excercised its judicial discretion in not dismissing the such upon that ground, the subordinate judge in appeal ought not to have interfered. it seems that the first corut was of opinion that there was misjoinder of diffirent causes of action in the suit. the munsif was of opinion that a seprate suit should have been brought against each defandant; but he says, as the laws does not lay down that such a suit should be thrown out on account of such a defect, he passed it overit appears to us that the munsif was wuite right in saying that there was a misjoinder of causes of action, and it appers to us that the lower appellate court was quite right in saying that the must be dismissed.the plaintiff had obtained a decree under section 52 of the rent law of 1869 to eject his tenant for arrears of rent and to obtain possession of the tenure. in attempting to execute that decree he was opposed as regards certain plots of land which he alleged to be comprised in that tenure. as to some of the lands he got .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1892 (PC)

Ananta Lal Mondul and anr. Vs. RajnaraIn Mitra

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1892)ILR19Cal703

..... many of the issues, while we agree with it on others.10. the first issue was as to the plea of misjoinder of parties and causes of action, and of multifariousness. the subordinate judge has decided this issue in favour of the plaintiffs merely on the ground that the purchasers are necessarily proper parties to a suit brought to set aside .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 14 1899 (PC)

Nistarini Dassi Vs. Nundo Lall Bose and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1899)ILR26Cal891

..... judgment the vice-chancellor says: 'next, as to the question of multifariousness, i think that there is no more in the objection on that ground than there is in that for want of parties. there are three analogous vices ..... him in all respects, and with all losses occasioned by his mismanagement, and for a receiver and for an injunction, a demurrer by the uncle for multifariousness and for want of parties was overruled.26. the frame of that suit is not unlike that of the present suit.27. in the course of his ..... assets of a deceased person, and the fact that in the claim acts of mal-administration are complained of, and sought to be redressed, does not render it multifarious.25. in the case of pointon v. pointon (1871) l.r., 12 eq., 547, where three out of four testator's children, residuary legatees (the ..... sought, as the old form of the demurrer for multifariousness shows. misjoinder of subjects of suit is where two subjects distinct in their nature are united in one bill, and for convenience sake the ..... to which bills in equity are subject--misjoinder of plaintiffs, misjoinder of defendants, and multifariousness or misjoinder of subjects of suit. it is the last which is imputed to this bill. multifariousness, properly so called, exists when one of the defendants is not interested in the whole of the relief .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 1903 (PC)

Girjanath Ray Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Ray Chaudhuri and o ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.84

..... by their suit to obtain possession as the rightful owners.2. the learned judge in the court below has dismissed the action with costs, on the ground that it is multifarious. he says: 'it is clear, therefore, that the three sets of plaintiffs have no community of interest, each having acquired separate shares by separate conveyances at different dates from different ..... being owners, as they say, of the entire sixteen-annas in the property are entitled to bring this action to eject the defendants. i cannot see that the action is multifarious. it has been ingeniously suggested in this court that the plaintiffs have stated in their plaint that their cause of action was a certain order made in certain criminal proceedings .....

Tag this Judgment!


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