Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1950 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.001 seconds)

Nov 16 1950 (HC)

Puttamma Vs. Veerabhadra Mudaliar and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-16-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Kant22; AIR1951Mys22

..... . no. 65/49-50, however, defendant-appellant 1 complained that the lower court erred in not giving findings on all the issues and in not noticing the defects as to multifariousness and jurisdiction. the learned additional subordinate judge heard both the appeals together. he set aside the judgment of the munsiff and remanded the case to him for fresh disposal according .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1950 (HC)

Mst. Ulfat and ors. Vs. Zubaida Khatoon and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-06-1950

Reported in : AIR1955All361

..... amount mentioned in the plaint as the value of the ornaments.6. the defendants have come up in appeal. their learned advocate contended : (1) that the suit was bad for multifariousness and a question of jurisdiction was affected; (2) that there was no evidence to prove that house entered at item no. 1 of list a belonged to zahiruddin and the ..... , plaintiff no. 2 was also one of the persons who should have been sued or the claim reduced proportionately. neither of these courses was adopted. thus the suit was certainly multifarious. nevertheless that cannot be allowed to affect the decision now by reason of order ii, rule 7, c. p. c.8a. order ii, rule 7, c. p. c. provides:'all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 02 1950 (HC)

Shew Narayan Singh Vs. Brahmanand Singh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-02-1950

Reported in : AIR1950Cal479

..... defendants in the suit.4. the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the amendment to the plaint and the aforesaid addition of parties makes the suit bad for multifariousness and that this course is not sanctioned by the provision of the code of civil procedure. in developing this argument learned advocate points out that the plaintiff's claim against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1950 (HC)

Province of Bengal Vs. Commissioner for the Port of Calcutta and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-06-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Cal271,55CWN350

..... . is the suit bad for defective parties?2. is the suit barred by limitation, either general or special?3. is the suit under-valued?4. is the suit bad for multifariousness and misjoinder of parties and of cause of action?5. have the lands in suit been wrongly treated as 'added land' for purpose of assessing the game as lands never .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1950 (HC)

Channabasavegowda and ors. Vs. Rangegowda and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-30-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Kant38; AIR1951Mys38

..... share claimed by the plaintiffs on the ground that many of them were not born at all on the dates of the alienations and objected to the suit as being multifarious as defendants 1 to 3 had effected a partition of the family properties and the plaintiff's could not jointly seek a share pretending to be undivided. the learned munsiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

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