Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-11-1938
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!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-29-1938
Reported in : AIR1939Cal1
..... and the proprietors could not have been the same. if the patnidars wanted to litigate upon their title based on the putni lease the suit would have been bad for multifariousness. it cannot be said therefore that the matter covered by the defence in these two suits ought to have been a ground of attack in the rajshahi suit. we are .....Tag this Judgment!