AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Phillips, J.—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 not 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.1, Rule 3. That point has been
finally settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Govindaraja Mudaliar v. Alagappa Thambiran AIR 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 facts here are similar and,
following that case, it must be held that O.1, Rule 3 does apply.
It is then contended that, inasmuch as some of the properties were situate'' outside the jurisdiction of the Guntur Court, they could not be
included in this suit. Section 17, Civil P.C., is directly applicable in a case like this and the ruling referred to in Bengal and North Western Railway
Co. Ltd. v. Sadaram Bhairodan AIR 1922 Cal. 500 is no authority to the contrary. In that case it was quite unnecessary to discuss the effect of
Section 17. Another case has been referred to, namely Dampanaboyina Gangi v. Addala Ramaswami [1902] 25 Mad. 736. 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 flood, 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.