GAURI SHANKAR Vs. KESHAB DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeals Nos. 450, 101, 520 and 544 are all connected and we propose to dispose of them by one principal judgment. Gauri Shankar filed two suits for omnibus declarations that a large number of documents like simple mortgages, usufructuary mortgages, sale-deeds and releases and decrees obtained on the basis of other documents as well as certain auction-sales which have taken place are not binding on the plaintiff. Some of the mortgagees have sued for their money. The persons interested in the various transactions which amounted to about 51 in number were numerous. About 65 defendants were impleaded in the Court below in the first instance and the number has swelled considerably in consequence of the deaths of several of them, and their representatives having been brought on the record in the Court below and in this Court. Briefly speaking the plaintiff's case was that he was a minor, and during his minority his uncle Keshab Deo started an entirely new shop styled Keshab Deo Gauri Shankar in 1915 to which the plaintiff on account of his minority could not be legally made a partner so as to be liable for the obligations; that his uncle Keshab Deo has executed a large number of documents and raised money on the security of the plaintiff's share in the family property which is by no means liable. The plaintiff's case rested on the assertion that the plaintiff and his uncle were not members of a joint Hindu family. Although a long list of the various transactions was attached to the plaint they were not separately and specifically dealt with, and the necessary particulars were not supplied. The Court called upon the plaintiff to supply further particulars, which were given in the application dated 9 July 1923, but even there the plaintiff did not deal with the various deeds separately, nor point out the irregularities in the previous suits on which he was going to rely.

(2.) The defence raised by the various defendants had one common feature about it, viz., that there was an assertion that the plaintiff and Keshab Deo, defendant were members of a joint Hindu family and that the firm Keshab Deo Gauri Shankar, on account of which most of the debts were incurred, was a joint family business, the liability of which was binding on the plaintiff. There was of course a denial that there had been any irregularity in obtaining the various decrees, and also a denial that the plaintiff had in any way been prejudiced. Several defendants also took the plea that the suit was bad for multifariousness inasmuch as numerous causes of action had been wrongly jointed together.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge framed several issues including the one as to the question of multifariousness. Unfortunately he postponed the decision of the last mentioned issue till all the evidence had been recorded and then summarily disposed of it, holding that the suit was not defective.