High CourtsDivision Bench(1927) 10 MAD CK 0014

Edega Obanna vs Kanithi Reddi and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 17 October 1927 · Citation: 108 Ind. Cas. 544

HON’BLE JUDGES
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J · Jackson, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 431 words
1.

The plaintiff who is the appellant before us instituted the suit for recovery of possession of certain, property mortgaged to him with possession

and for damages for wrongful trespass committed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and in the alternative for a decree on the mortgage. In the Court of

the District Munsif, the plaintiff obtained a decree against 1st defendant mortgagor for the amount of the mortgage plus the sum of Rs. 180 as and

for damages and so far as the 2nd defendant was concerned the decree against him was confined to a sum of Rs. 90 probably as being, half the

amount of the damages caused to the plaintiff by the trespass complained of. The lower Appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff''s suit was a

simple mortgage suit and finding that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were claiming title to the property on a paramount title held that they were not

proper parties and reversing the decree of the District Munsif dismissed the suit against defendants Nos. 2 and 3.

2.

On this appeal by the plaintiff the objection is taken that under the provisions of Section 99 of the CPC it was not competent to the lower

Appellate Court to reverse the decree passed by the District Munsif on the mere ground of misjoinder of parties and causes of action, more

especially, when there is no finding by the lower Appellate Court that such misjoinder affected the merits of case or the jurisdiction of the Court.

There is no reason to believe that the misjoinder of parties and causes of action has had any such effect. The lower Appellate Court was also

clearly wrong in regarding the plaintiff''s suit as one only on the mortgage. It was primarily a suit for the recovery of possession of the property and

for damages. We are, therefore, of opinion that under the terms of that section it was not competent to the lower Appellate Court to reverse the

decree passed by the District Munsif. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court are set

aside, The case is remanded to the lower Appellate Court for disposal according to law on the other questions that arise in the case with regard to

which the lower Appellate Court has not come to any determination. Costs of this second appeal will abide and be provided for by the final order

to be passed by the lower Appellate Court. The Court-fee paid by the appellant to this Court will be refunded to him.