High CourtsDivision Bench(1908) 04 MAD CK 0010

Rasu Mudaliar vs Veerasami Pillai and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 16 April 1908 · Citation: (1908) 18 MLJ 495

HON’BLE JUDGES
Wallis, 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

9 paragraphs · 224 words

Wallis, J.—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 I L.R.

(1891) 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 ILR (1900) M. 269 is to the same effect. On the other hand, the case of Peria Karuppan v. Velayuthan

Chetty ILR (1905) M. 303 appears to approve of the case of Pyari Mohan Bose v. Kedar Nath Roy ILR (1900) 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.