Vaclamudi Bhimayya And Ors. vs Putcha Lakshminarayana on 21 February, 1928

Last Updated on

Madras High Court
Vaclamudi Bhimayya And Ors. vs Putcha Lakshminarayana on 21 February, 1928
Equivalent citations: 110 Ind Cas 672
Bench: W W Phillips, Devadoss


In this case an adopted son brought a suit to set aside a large number of alienations effected by his adoptive mother and guardian. The appellants are some of the alienees and they present this appeal relying on the contention that the suit was net maintainable in the Sub-Court, Guntur, on the ground that the properties alienated to them were situate within the jurisdiction of the Bezwada Court. In the first place it is contended that the suit in respect of all these alienations is bad as it does not come within the provision of O.I, Rule 3. That point has been finally settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Govindaraja Mudaliar v. Alagappa Thambiran 97 Ind. Cas. 212; 49 M. 836; 24 L.W. 186; 51 M.L.J. 194; (1826) M.W.N. 642; A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 911 where it was held that a suit to set aside a number of alienations by a previous trustee was not bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The facta here are similar and following that case it must be held that Order I, Rule 3 does apply.

It is then contended that, inasmuch as gome of the properties were situate out side the jurisdiction of the Guntur Court, they could not be included in this suit. Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is directly applicable in a case like this and the ruling referred to in Bengal and North Western Railway Co., Ltd. v. Sadaram Bhairodan 70 Ind. Cas. 229; 49 C. 895; 27 C.W.N. 82; A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 500 is no authority to the contrary. In that case it was quite unntssesaary to discuss the effect of Section 17. Another case has been referred to, namely, Dampanaboyina Gangi v. Addala Ramaswami 25 M. 736; 18 M.L.J. 103. The principle of that case may be accepted and still it does not affect the question here.

The further point that these appellants were not able to adduce evidence owing to flcod has been dealt with by the lower Court in an interlocutory order and there is no reason to interfere with that order seeing that the appellants had taken no steps whatever to prepare for the case.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *