Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1948 Page 1 of about 6 results (0.001 seconds)

Dec 23 1948 (PC)

Jagarnath Sahu and ors. Vs. Srikant Dube and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-23-1948

Reported in : AIR1949All589

..... to accept this contention. in the first place, because even in a regular suit the joinder of such causes of action would result in the defect of multifariousness for which ample authority has already been quoted, and, in the second place, because causes of action may not be joined so as to permit court ..... in the equity of redemption. a suit for redemption in which adverse claims are sought to be investigated would, therefore, be as much bad for multifariousness as a suit for foreclosure or sale would be on the same ground. i am supported in this view by a decision of the bombay high ..... purchasers of other portions of the mortgaged property who were made parties and who also alleged paramount titles in themselves, so that the suit would have been multifarious and confused in the highest degree if it had gone on in that shape.' (per lord hobhouse, in nilakant's case 12 i.a. 171 supra ..... have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for their determination, if properly framed. how the suit becomes multifarious will appear from the following short quotations from juggeswar dutt's case 33 cal. 425 3 c.l.j. 205 and the two cases decided by ..... a title paramount to that of the mortgagor and the mortgagee, are sought to be investigated, is open to objection on the ground of misjoinder and multifariousness and(2) that if adverse claims be allowed to be litigated in a mortgage suit, such claims may obviously be determined by a court which would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1948 (PC)

Cherukur China Venkatasubba Naidu and ors. Vs. Kandadi Sundara Varadac ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-07-1948

Reported in : AIR1950Mad12

..... rights declared to several items of property detailed in plaint schedule a. after issues were framed, the district munsif in a considered order found that the plaint was bad for multifariousness and misjoinder of parties so far as plaint schedule a lands were concerned. the petitioners all sought the same relief as regards schedule. b lands holding that they were lands ..... enjoyed in common. the learned district munsif found that the suit was not bad as regards schedule. b either for multifariousness or for misjoinder.2. the plaint is interesting and has been keenly argued before me. mr. kuppuswami for the petitioners contends that the pleadings raise in question a common issue ..... are entitled to the injunction prayed for ?(7) whether the plaintiffs can ask for injunction without claiming possession of schedule b lands; and(8) whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and is liable to be dismissed on that ground ?4. the plaint was filed under the provisions of order 1, rule 1 which permits all persons to join in a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1948 (PC)

Mohammad Khalil Khan Vs. Mahbub Ali Mian

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-31-1948

Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR9

..... district shahjahanpur on october 29, 1928. as the parties were also different, both the properties could not be included in one suit, otherwise the suit would have become bad for 'multifariousness.'(e) at the time of the institution of suit no, 8 of 1928, the second appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs against the collector's order dated june 20, 1928, was ..... 'belated' application, that it would be convenient for the rival claimants to this property to have their claims tried in the court of the subordinate judge of shahjahanpur to avoid multifarious-ness, and that the causes of action to recover the two properties were different. in the course of his order the learned judge also said,-if and when the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1948 (PC)

Jagannath Singh and anr. Vs. Pragi Kunwar and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-09-1948

Reported in : AIR1949All448

..... to the suit were the only persons responsible for the murder of jai ram. it may be noted here that the defendants had pleaded that the suit was bad for multifariousness. consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs had released any of the joint tortfeasors.5. the trial court had pointed out that the suit was maintainable under the fatal .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1948 (PC)

Mohammad Khalil Khan and Others Vs. Mahbub Ali Mian and Others

Court : Privy Council

Decided on : May-31-1948

..... district shahjahanpur on 29th october 1928. as the parties were also different, both the properties could not be included in one suit, otherwise the suit would have become bad for 'multifariousness.' (e) at the time of the institution of suit no. 8 of 1928, the second appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs against the collector's order dated 20th june 1928, was ..... "belated" application, that it would be convenient for the rival claimants to this property to have their claims tried in the court of the subordinate judge of shahjahanpur to avoid multifariousness, and that the causes of action to recover the two properties were different. in the course of his order, the learned judge also said : "if and when the suit in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 1948 (FN)

Ford Motor Co. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-15-1948

..... by the united states under 4 of the sherman law, 26 stat. 209, as amended, 36 stat. 1167, 15 u.s.c. 4. the cases present another phase of a multifarious litigation which has been occupying the attention of the federal judicial system for more than a decade. united states v. general motors corp., 26 f.supp. 353; united states v .....

Tag this Judgment!


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