Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1941 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.003 seconds)

Jan 22 1941 (PC)

inder Bahadur Singh Vs. Sita Ram and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-22-1941

Reported in : AIR1941All209

..... father to recover various portions of their father's estate from the hands of different alienees, and it was held that the suit was not bad for multifariousness. at p. 270 the learned judges say:the contention is that inasmuch as the property passed out of the hands of members of the family at ..... defendants not only other reversioners in possession of the property claimed, but also transferees of such property from the widow and such a suit is not bad for multifarious-ness. the decision in that case rested upon the provisions of order 4, rule 3, civil p.c., and. the learned judges say:under that ..... similar suit brought against the alienees of a deceased member of a joint hindu family for the recovery of family property illegally alienated was not bad for multifariousness.8. further on they say:in the view that the primary ground of action is the interest vested in possession as regards the whole of the property ..... alleged to have been illegally alienated by him and it was held by the court that the suit ought not to be dismissed on the ground of multifariousness. at page 293 the learned judges say:it is manifest that the number and nature of the alienations are no unimportant elements for the determination of their ..... of immorality of purpose. there were 62 defendants to the suit, and one of the pleas taken in defence was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. the learned munsif says:the result of this is that in reality the suit is not a single suit, but is a collection of a very .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1941 (PC)

Girija Prasanna Deb Gupta Vs. N.M. Khan and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-23-1941

Reported in : AIR1942Cal257

..... at the following findings : (1) that the plaintiff in his plaint did not plead expressly and specifically conspiracy among defendants 2 to 5. (2) that the suit was bad for multifariousness, misjoinder of parties and causes of action. (3) that the notice under section 80, civil p.c., was inadequate and invalid in so far as the tort of malicious prosecution ..... said criminal case. defendants 2 and 3 pleaded that they did not set up defendant 5 to file the criminal case against the plaintiff that the suit was bad for multifariousness, that the claim against them was barred by limitation and that the judicial officers' protection act was a bar to the maintainability of the suit against them. they also pleaded .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 1941 (PC)

Rao Bahadur V. Ranganatham Chettiar and ors. Vs. Mariappa Mudali and o ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-24-1941

Reported in : AIR1942Mad334; (1942)1MLJ92

..... stated, as a general rule, that--where substantial common questions of fact are involved in different claims against different parties, their joinder in one suit will not be regarded as multifarious--see per scrutton, l.j., in payne v. british time recorder co (1921) 2 k.b. 1 in the present case, as already observed, almost all the questions would be ..... same land but was forcibly dispossessed by the tenant-defendants in collusion with the landlord. though conspiracy among the defendants to dispossess the plaintiff was put forward, the plea of multifarious-ness was dealt with on the basis that no such conspiracy on the part of the defendants was established. in overruling the plea the learned judges observed:what concerns the ..... lands belonging to the temple after terminating their tenancy. various defences were raised by the respondents which were all decided against them by the lower court except the plea of multifariousness which was upheld. it would appear that the learned judge gave the appellants an opportunity to amend the plaint (if so advised) so as to cure the defect in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 1941 (PC)

Sris Chandra Nandy of Kasimbazar Represented by Manager Vs. Joyramdang ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-17-1941

Reported in : AIR1942Cal40

..... and the amount decreed in his favour by the trial judge. the point for determination in this reference is whether the suit out of which this appeal arises is a multifarious suit within the meaning of section 17, court-fees act. section 17, court-fees act (act 7 of 1870) is in these terms:where a suit embraces two or more ..... words in the new section are 'separate and distinct causes of action' and not 'distinct subjects.' in the old section a suit embracing two or more distinct subjects was a multifarious suit. under the present section, however, a suit in which two or more separate and distinct causes of action are joined is a ..... multifarious suit. the word 'cause of action' has not been defined in the court-fees act. apparently, it has been used in the same sense as in the code of civil .....

Tag this Judgment!

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