Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.

Madras High Court
Rasu Mudaliar vs Veerasami Pillai And Ors. on 16 April, 1908
Equivalent citations: (1908) 18 MLJ 495
Author: Wallis


Wallis, J.

1. Section 28 of the Code of Civil-Procedure cannot enable the plaintiff to join with his suit against the 1st defendant a suit for an account against his co-trustee, the 2nd defendant, over which the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction. It is said, however, that the Subordinate Judge should have allowed the plaintiff to proceed with his suit against the 1st defendant. Where one co-trustee joined the other as one of the defendants, and it was not shown that the other trustee had refused to be joined as plaintiff, it was held in Parameswaren v. Shangaran (1891) 1 L.R. 14 M. 489 that the District Judge was right in dismissing the suit on the ground that the co-trustee was not joined as plaintiff. The case of Savitri Antarjanam v. Raman Namboodiri (1900) I.L.R. 24 M. 269 is to the same effect. On the other hand, the case of Peria Karuppan v. Velayuthan Chetty (1905) I.L.R. 29 M. 303 appears to approve of the case of Pyari Mohan Bose v. Kedar Nath Roy (1900) I.L.R. 26 C. 409 in which it was held immaterial whether the co-trustee is made a defendant or a plaintiff. Following this as the latest authority in this Court, I set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the case to him for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.201 seconds.