SAVITRI ANTARJANAM Vs. RAMAN NAMBUDRI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE District Munsif found that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff without consulting the defendants Nos. 5 to 11 or even asking them to join and the Subordinate Judge does not disagree with this finding. We must assume therefore that he agreed with it. THE Subordinate Judge proceeds to find that it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to ask the defendants Nos. 5 to 11 to join because they had denied his title. We cannot agree with that opinion. If one uralan whose title is denied by the other may bring suits and do other acts without consulting his fellow-uralan, he is virtually constituting himself sole uralan, whereas it is clear law that two co-uralans must act jointly. It is only when one perversely declines to co-operate with the other after being invited to do so and when it is for the benefit of the institution that proceedings should be taken that one uralan can sue impleading the other as defendant.
(2.) WE think the original decree was right and we therefore reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore the original decree of the District Munsif with all costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.