AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We agree with the view of the lower Court that the suit is liable to dismissal for misjoinder of parties and causes of action (issue No. 1).
The cause of action as set out in the plaint is the denial of plaintiff''s title as landlord implied in the unauthorized removal of crops by the tenants.
This removal of crops is the individual act of each tenant, and appears from the plaint to have been spread over the space of a month. There is no
definite allegation of conspiracy and admittedly no evidence of conspiracy or collusion on the part of the various tenants impleaded as defendants.
In our opinion the case cannot be held, to be covered by the wording of Order I, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The cases which are relied on by appellant''s Vakil, Ishan Chunder Hazra v. Rameswar Mondal 24 C. 831. and Umabai v. Vithal 33 B. 293 :
11 Bom. L R. 34. relate to suits by reversioners, in which the right to recovery is based on a single event, the death of the last holder : and can be
distinguished on this ground.
We may refer to other cases, Sudhendu Mohun Roy v. Durga Dasi 14 C. 435. and Ram Narain Dutt v. Annoda Prosad Joshi 14 C. 681., in
support of our view.
As regards respondents Nos. 8, 9, 17, 28, 38, 49, 87, 89, 93, .97, 122, 126, 127, 129, 169 and 175, the appeal has abated by reason of their
death and appellant''s failure to bring their legal representatives on record.
As regards the other respondents, the appeal is dismissed with costs of those respondents who are represented (viz. respondents Nos. 1 to 3,
18, 34, 35, 39 to 41, 52 to 54, 73, 74 to 76), and the appeal as against respondents Nos. 4 to 7, 10 to 16, 19 to 27, 29 to 33, 36, 37, 42 to 48,
50, 51, 55 to 72, 75, 77 to 86, 88, 90 to 92, 94 to 96, 98 to 121, 123 to 125, 128, 130 to 168, 170 to 174 and 176, who do not appear, and
the memorandum of objections is dismissed.