Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1928 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.001 seconds)

Nov 09 1928 (PC)

Gauri Shankar Vs. Keshab Deo and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-09-1928

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!

Jan 27 1928 (PC)

Ramasamy Pillai and ors. Vs. Marimuthu Goundan and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-27-1928

Reported in : AIR1928Mad764; 113Ind.Cas.865

..... prays in effect not only for a decree for sale on his mortgage, but also for a declaration against the alleged paramount title of the third party, his suit is multifarious by misjoinder of separate defendants and separate causes of action. but mr. krishnaswami ayyar contends that the position is different if a defendant, who is properly on record in the ..... analysis of the above cases that in all of them the paramount title pleaded was of a party different from the mortgagor and the suit would have been bad for multifariousness if the point was considered. it is in that form that the objection was stated by the privy council in radha kunwar v. reoti singh a.i.r. 1916 p ..... . he pointed out that their lordships observed that if the defendants who alleged a paramount title in this had been allowed to remain as parties, the suit would have been multifarious and confused in the highest decree if it had gone on in that shape.4. he distinguished the decision hare krishna bhowmik v. robert watson & co. [1904] 8 c.w ..... of parties and of causes of action. the subordinate judge disallowed the objection. there was an appeal by the defendants who repeated the objection that the suit as framed was multifarious. mukerjee, j., exhaustively reviewed all the authorities on this matter. he referred to the decision in nilakant bannerji v. suresh chandra mullick [1886] 12 cal. 414, a decision of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1928 (PC)

Suniti Sundari Devi Vs. Srikrishna Chakravarti and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-23-1928

Reported in : AIR1928Cal514

..... seems to me that, having regard to the circumstances of this case, that is the proper procedure to be adopted. no doubt the suit can very well be described as multifarious as these defendants claim different properties under different sales, but there are these common (questions of fact and law. therefore it seems to us that it would not lead to ..... . issue 1 whether the plaintiff had any cause of action, wa3 decided in her favour. issues 2 and 3 related particularly to the question whether the suit was bad for multifariousness. issue 4 was whether the suit as against defendant 3 was barred by limitation. the last issue was with regard to the question of res judicata which also was decided ..... before us with regard to the plaintiff's right to sue and with regard to the question of res judicata.2. the appeal before us refers to the question of multifariousness and the point of limitation. the subordinate judge decided those two questions against the plaintiff. he held that the suit as framed was ..... multifarious and he asked the plaintiff to elect within a certain date as to which of the defendants she wanted to proceed against and to amend her plaint accordingly. the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 1928 (PC)

Emperor Vs. Vinayak Lakshman Bhatkhande

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-23-1928

Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR1530; 113Ind.Cas.612

..... the real charge has not been established.13. a perusal of the case in emperor v. mohan singh will show that the accused in that case was commissioned to perform multifarious duties, he was given a general authority to sell goods, collect money, purchase goods, pay labour dues and general ex-penses and the prosecution was brought in respect of a .....

Tag this Judgment!


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