KIZHEKKE MANJAMBRATH AVULLA Vs. CKPKANNA KURUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question argued before us is, whether the plaintiff is debarred from bringing his suit by reason of the omission of some of the co-owners of the property in his previous suit for redemption in contra-vention of the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 1.

(2.) The plaint states expressly that the previous suit was against the 1st defendant in his personal capacity and this also appears from the order dismissing the 4th defendant from that suit; there is, accordingly, no question of the members of the 1st defendant s Tarwad other than the 4th defendant being bound by the previous decree.

(3.) The plaint does not allege that the plaintiff was ignorant of the claims of those persons to the Kanom right, and I think that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that he had notice of that claim when he brought the previous suit.