Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1966 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.001 seconds)

Oct 04 1966 (HC)

Laxmibai Vs. Madhankar Vinayak Kulkarni and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-04-1966

Reported in : AIR1968Kant82; AIR1968Mys82; (1967)1MysLJ27

..... of law and fact, and would incidentally affect the properties which happen to be situated both within cuttack and kendrapare jurisdictions. the suit, as framed, was therefore not bad for multifariousness and was maintainable in cuttack court under section 17 read with o.1 r.3.'(17) to the same effect is the full bench decision of the nagpur high court ..... a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of the suit property is situate.(16) it is then contended by mr. joshi that the suit is bad for multifariousness, i.e., for having joined different causes of action in the same suit. he contends that the cause of action in relation to kowad property is quite different from the ..... jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same is not bad for multifariousness.(8) on the other hand, mr. mandgi appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff contends that the court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, thus supporting the findings of the ..... situate in the state of maharashtra so as to make the decision binding on the subject of the state of maharashtra, he also contended that the suit is bad for multifariousness in that different causes of action have been combined together to claim relief against various defendants and therefore the learned munsiff was in error in holding that he had the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1966 (SC)

Sheodan Singh Vs. Smt. Daryao Kunwar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-14-1966

Reported in : AIR1966SC1332; [1966]3SCR300

..... by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of plaintiff's appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder of parties or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1966 (HC)

M.K. Venkatachari and ors. Vs. L.A.R. Arunachalam Pillai and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-01-1966

Reported in : AIR1967Mad410

..... been the case in the three authorities cited by the advocate for the defendants. when the court insisted that the suit was bad for multifariousness, the pleader for the plaintiff merely expressed his willingness to continue the suit as against the second defendant.thereupon the court did not order ..... plaintiff found it difficult to maintain his stand as to the frame of the suit while the court insisted that the suit was bad for multifariousness, he expressed his willingness to continue the suit against the 2nd defendant alone. thereupon the trial judge ordered the name of the remaining defendants ..... plaintiff had earlier instituted a suit in the same cause of action against two sets of defendants. objection was taken that the suit was multifarious because different causes of action arising out of different defendants had been wrongly joined together. on the court expressing its opinion that the frame if ..... case where the plaintiffs merely or out of a proceeding and allowed their names to be struck out because the suit was bad for multifariousness. here the learned district judge overlooks that the defence to limitation is a creature of positive law and therefore cannot be extended to cases ..... that the suit as one for administration did not lie, the court held that logically it followed that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness though common questions of fact arose for consideration, particularly the claim that the chit was joint family business. each of the plaintiffs was an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 22 1966 (HC)

N. Desaiah and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jun-22-1966

Reported in : AIR1968AP5; (1969)IILLJ88AP

..... and fair play. if the committee or the government gave no opportunity of personal bearing that would not be fatal when the representations were properly considered. having regard to the multifarious matters involved in the process of division and integration and the vast number of persons interested therein, it may not be possible for the central government to give notice to .....

Tag this Judgment!

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