Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1926 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.001 seconds)

Mar 24 1926 (PC)

C.S. Govindaraja Mudaliar, Receiver, Sri Komaleswara Temple Properties ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-24-1926

Reported in : AIR1926Mad911; 97Ind.Cas.212; (1926)51MLJ194

..... privy council observed that he himself was responsible for the joinder and ought not to complain. i therefore hold that the suit is not bad for multifariousness. the order will therefore be reversed and the suit sent back for disposal according to law, and i agree with my learned brother krishnan, j.' ..... before the learned judge. he relied upon a passage in sethuratnam aiyar v. venkatachela goundan 38 m l j 476 (p c). no question of multifariousness was raised in the case. before the privy council the plaintiff himself complained that evidence relating to one item should not have been used against him for ..... relief that is claimed severally against the different defendants be in respect of the same matter, section 28, civil procedure code, will save it from the objection of multifariousness.14. in my opinion, the above sentences quoted from dampana-boyina gangi v. addala ramaswami 12 m l j 103, though strictly obiter, dicta as ..... against a number of alienees of a deceased member of an undivided family for the recovery of family property illegally alienated by him is not bad for multifari-ousness. in mahomed v. krishnan i.l.r. (1887) m 106 the suit was brought by the junior members of a tarwad against the ..... for misjoinder of parties and causes of action?' this was first argued. the learned judge held that the frame of the suit was bad for multifarious-ness and he passed an order giving leave to the plaintiff to proceed with the suit against such one of the defendants as he may choose .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 1926 (PC)

Alamuri Punniah Vs. Sagarajee Kasarmal Firm Tenal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-22-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad124; (1926)51MLJ712

..... to the length of laying down that, if the acts of insolvency are not joint but separate, a single petition would not lie, though it would not be bad for multifariousness, when treated as a suit. if the act of insolvency committed by each partner would become of the circumstances affording a cause of action against him, it has still to ..... unsustainable merely because they have not committed a joint act of insolvency. the test is, whether if the application were treated as a suit the suit would be bad for multifariousness, as was held in mamayya v. k.r. rice mill co. 40 m l j 570. in that case, the members of a joint hindu family were sought to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1926 (PC)

Yennamani Ramanna Vs. Masunuri Venkatanarayana

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-06-1926

Reported in : (1927)52MLJ52

..... . (1887) 123 u s 747 the question whether this issue should be determined in the present suit to enforce the mortgage or in a separate action was a question of multifariousness or of convenience, affecting the discretion only and not the jurisdiction of the court.13. nilakant banerji v. suresh chandra mullick i l r (1885) c 414 is distinguishable from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1926 (PC)

(Yennamani) Ramanna Vs. (Masunuri) Venkatanarayana

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-06-1926

Reported in : AIR1927Mad301

..... . [1847] 123 u. s. 747 the question whether this issue should be determined in the present suit to enforce the mortgage or in a separate action was a question of multifariousness or of convenience, affecting the discretion only and not the jurisdiction of the court.13. nilakant banerji v. suresh chandra mullick [1885] 12 cal. 414 is distinguishable from the present .....

Tag this Judgment!


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