Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Sorted by: old Court: mumbai Page 1 of about 143 results (0.005 seconds)

Feb 21 1883 (PC)

Kacharbhoj Vaija and ors. Vs. Bai Rathore Widow of Kachar Raja Jetha a ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1883)ILR7Bom289

..... would stand, he might properly frame the issues of fact for the determination of the case, and take evidence on them, and then dismiss the suit on the ground of multifariousness, without recording any finding on the other issues. in the present case the judge has raised all the issues, and found on the issues of law--first, that there was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1914 (PC)

Kashinath Ramchandra Vs. Nathoo Keshav

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1914Bom180; (1914)16BOMLR454

..... join in a suit to establish title to land any other cause of action so long as you did not make your bill open to objection on the ground of multifariousness. up to the time of the judicature act of 1873 the common law courts entertained actions for rent upon the covenant in the lease after ejectment on the ground of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1927 (PC)

Nathubhai Ichharam Vs. Narayanacharya Ramacharya

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1927Bom470; (1927)29BOMLR937

..... not liable to be joined as parties to a suit against the executor: macdonald v. richardson: richardson v. marten (1858) 1 giff. 81. a similar objection on the ground of multifariousness and for want of parties was overruled in pointon v. pointon (1871) l.r. 12 eq. 547. the decision in bamanji ardeshir v. bai mariam (1919) f.a. no. 164 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1931 (PC)

Bhagvan Gokul Ji and Co. Vs. Balku Babaji

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1932Bom1; (1931)33BOMLR1291; 136Ind.Cas.497

..... common to the case against both the defendants, and this seems to me sufficient to bring the case within the rule, and the finding that the suit is bad for multifariousness appears to me on the facts to have been a mistaken one. i agree that the decree should be set aside as proposed by the learned chief justice.2. costs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1934 (PC)

Chimanlal Ganpatram Ghanchi Vs. Natvarlal Maganlal

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1935Bom131; (1935)37BOMLR62; 155Ind.Cas.7

..... . the second rent-note purporting to have been executed jointly in favour of the mortgagee and divali was repudiated in that suit by divali, the suit was, however, dismissed for multifariousness and for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court did not go into the merits. in 1928 muli died, and towards the end of 1929 plaintiff has brought ..... between landlord and tenant, to raise the question of his rights as against the rights of muli or the mortgagee. to do so would have made the suit bad for multifariousness, and again it would have been dismissed without being considered on the merits. this question was, therefore, not constructively in issue in the suit of 1922, and on that ground .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1934 (PC)

Mulchand Hemraj Vs. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1935Bom287; (1935)37BOMLR288; 159Ind.Cas.911

..... not only in the commission agency business but also in the pearl business of chaturbhuj pitamberdas & co. i also hold that the suit is not bad on the ground of multifariousness, and is maintainable as framed.8. the most important question, however, in the suit relates to the liability of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants who contend that they are ..... question of the 7th defendant's partnership later, because if it is held that he was a partner, the suit cannot be said to be bad on the ground of multifariousness.6. the original 1st defendant and the 4th, 6th and 7th defendants were the principal defendants in the suit. the original 1st defendant is dead, and the other 6th and ..... ).5. there is one other preliminary issue which i should like to deal with before' dealing with the main issue, viz., whether the suit is maintainable on the ground of multifariousness. it was argued by counsel for the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants that there was a misjoinder of defendants and causes of action, as the suit is for an amalgamated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 1936 (PC)

Mahant Ramdhan Puri Vs. Chaudhury Lachmi Narain

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR363

..... inconvenience and expense caused to the defendants. the written statement of the present appellants (as is common in india) contained a plea that the suit was bad for misjoinder or multifariousness, but their lordships have not been satisfied that at any time before the commencement of the trial any appropriate and serious application was made to the court upon the face .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1938 (PC)

Narhari Gangadharji Vs. Baburao Ranchhodlal Vaidya

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1939Bom299; (1939)41BOMLR413

..... cannot be given possession in a suit framed as this suit has been framed.6. mr. desai for the respondent contends that there has been a decision the issue of multifariousness, in which the rights of defendant no. 3 came into question, and that there has accordingly been at any rate a partial decision on the merits as between the plaintiff ..... amend his plaint accordingly. he also held against the plaintiff on the question of multifariousness, and ordered him to elect between defendants nos. 1 and 2 on the one hand and defendant no. 3 on the other. this order was the subject of a revision ..... aside and it was ordered that the suit should be transferred to; the first class court for trial.2. the first class subordinate judge tried the issues of valuation and multifariousness and held that the proper frame of the suit would be for possession with a valuation based on the value of the property, and he ordered that the plaintiff should ..... (not for possession), valued it notionally at rs. 800, and filed it in the second class court. the second class subordinate judge framed; preliminary issues as to jurisdiction, valuation, and multifariousness, and dismissed the suit on all three points. if the judge had no jurisdiction, he was clearly in error in dismissing the suit; and on the plaintiff appealing to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1943 (PC)

Rustamalli Goharalli Mirza Vs. Aftabhuseinkhan Najafallikhan Mirza

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1943Bom414; (1943)45BOMLR862

..... from defendants nos. 2 to 8, or whoever may be in possession of the two villages. defendants nos. 2 to 8 contended that the plaintiff's suit was bad for multifariousness, that it was not in time, that the plaintiff had no right to recover rs. 21 every year and that in any case, being transferees for valuable consideration without notice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1946 (PC)

Kanhayalal Supdubhai Vs. Hiralal Deoram

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!


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