9911796707
TMI Blog1921 (12) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ari the husband of the two defendants. In 1878 there was a partition between Bal Kishun and his cousin Naunidh by which most of the ancestral properties were divided, but certain houses, gardens and movables remained joint. Naunidh as the elder was the custodian of this property. In 1886 a partition was effected between Bal Kishun and his son Radha Kishun by which the share of Bal Kishun's branch in the properties which had remained joint became exclusively Bal Kishun's. On the 17th of February, 1888, Bal Kishun executed a Will which, so far as it related to ancestral property, was in favour of his Jeona Bahu, and in April 1888, he died. In June, 1888 an agreement purported to be made between Radha Kishun and Naunidh by which the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule 1, lays down that nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorize the court to permit one of several plaintiffs to withdraw without the consent of the others. This clause limits the jurisdiction of the court to grant permission to withdraw a suit to cases where all the plaintiffs join in the application. In the suit of 1901 there were four plaintiffs, Ram Dei, Jeona Bahu and two persons Kuldip Sahai and Raghunath Sahai who were apparently financing the litigation. The application for withdrawal was on behalf of Ram Dei and Jeona Bahu alone, and in my opinion on such an application, the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to permit the suit to be withdrawn at all. (His Lordship then held that a suit for partition was however not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermission to bring a fresh suit, and when once this permission is given, no other court will question the propriety of the permission. This view is now settled in this Court by the last Full Bench decision in the case of Raj Kumar Mahton v. Ram Khelawan Singh A.I.R. 1922 Pat 44 = 1 Patna 90 (F.B.). In the present case, however, the suit was withdrawn by only two out of the four plaintiffs, and the question then arises whether the Full Bench decision governs the present case. Order XXIII, rule 1, clause (4), prohibits the court to permit one of several plaintiffs to withdraw without the consent of the others. Therefore in order to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the court to permit the withdrawal of a suit with permission to bring a fres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
