VELAMMA MUTHAMMA Vs. KRISHNASWAMY NAIDU MUTHU PILLAI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is from the judgments and decrees in three appeals filed by three different parties in the same suit. The suit is for recovery of possession of properties with mesne profits. From the portion of the decree which made the 6th defendant liable for mesne profits he preferred A. S. No. 312 of 1124. The legal representatives of the 2nd defendant filed A. S. No. 292 of 1124 from that portion of the decree which allowed the plaintiff to recover possession of plaint item No. 1. The plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 315 of 1124 from the portion of the decree which disallowed his claim in respect of plaint schedule item No. 2. All the three appeals were heard together. But three separate judgments were written and three also were prepared. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal from all the three decrees. The question was raised by the office as to whether the plaintiff should be ordered to file three separate appeals from the three separate decrees. Notice was given to the Advocate General and the Government Pleader was beard on the matter.

(2.) It was argued for the appellant that since the three appeals in the lower appellate Court were from the same decree the three decrees passed by that court in the three appeals should be regarded as one decree passed in the case. This question came up for consideration in Nanu Prasad v. Nassim Hussain (ILR 50 All. 517). In that case Lindsay, J. observed thus:

(3.) For the reasons mentioned above we hold that it is enough if on appeal is filed in this case from the three decrees of the lower appellate court.