TARAPADA MONDAL Vs. MRIGANAYANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party No. 1 instituted a suit for declaration of her title to and for delivery of Johns possession on ejectment of the Defendants from several plots of land on the averment that she had become entitled to the property as the reversioner to the estate of her father Surendra Nath Mondal and that whatever interest the different Defendants had in the several plots on the strength of purchase at sales by private treaty or in court sales in execution of decrees when the property was in the possession of her mother is no longer subsisting after the death of her mother on January 14, 1952. There were altogether five sales by private treaty and three sales in execution of decrees of court. They were set out in the plaint as the basis on which the Defendants claimed their interest.

(2.) ON an objection being raised on behalf of the Defendants that the suit was not maintainable as framed on the ground that there had been misjoinder of causes of action, the learned Subordinate Judge decided that one suit was maintainable as regards the lands covered by the five deeds of sale by private treaty and that a separate suit was maintainable as regards the lands covered by the three sales in execution of decrees. In this view he called upon the Plaintiff to proceed either in respect of the lands of the five kabalas or in respect of the lands of the three sale certificates. The Plaintiff made her election to proceed in respect of the lands covered by the five kabalas. The Petitioners contend that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in his decision that one suit is maintainable in respect of the lands of the five kabalas and have asked us to set aside that order in the exercise of our powers of revision.

(3.) IT is contended before us on behalf of the Petitioners that the question the court will have to decide as regards the plots of lands covered by each separate kabala would be whether the sale in respect of that particular kabala was justified by legal necessity and consequently the cause of action as regards the land of each kabala was separate and distinct. The question is not free from difficulty though it may be mentioned that there are two decisions of this Court, viz., the cases of Ishan Chandra Hazra v. Rameswar Mondal, I.L.R. (1897) Cal. 831, and Nundo Kumar Nasker v. Bonomali Gayan, I.L.R. (1902) . Cal. 871, which would seem to support the view that there is one single cause of action.