ANANDA Vs. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. Plaintiff's case as disclosed in the amended plaint and oral pleadings is that defendant 5, Ananda, brought to him the pro-note in suit ready written up and signed by the father of the first four defendants since deceased and took the consideration of Rs. 500. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed the amount due on the said note principally from the first four defendants as legal representatives of their father or in the alternative from Ananda defendant 5 who actually took the money representing himself to be an agent of the executant.

(2.) UNDER these circumstances it was held by the lower Court that there was neither misjoinder of parties nor causes of action nor any inadequate payment of court-fees. This application is filed by defendant 5 asking this Court to revise the aforesaid order of the lower Court. My attention was drawn by the learned pleader for the applicant to the case of Hirderarn v. Ramcharan A.I.R. 1924 Nag. 169 wherein it was held that a suit for possession of the land against defendant 2, or in the alternative for the return of the consideration with interest from defendant 1 tenant who had surrendered to the plaintiff landlord requires separate court-fee for each relief because the claim for possession of the land is a claim in respect of the proprietary interest in the land, where as the claim regarding refund of the money is a suit based on failure of consideration.