TMI Blog1955 (1) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the business carried on by the Plaintiffs was a joint family business and that as all the members of the family had not been included in the suit as Plaintiffs, the suit was not maintainable. The learned Munsiff first held that the other members of the joint family were necessary parties and ought to have been impleaded. But in the final judgment he came to the conclusion that the non-joinder of the other members of the family was not fatal to the suit and passed a decree directing the Defendant to return the pledged ornaments after receiving from the Plaintiffs ₹ 678. The Plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of the District Judge, Dhar. The Defendant also filed a cross-appeal. The learned District Judge modified the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebutted by the Defendant. Learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant before us did not say that the present Plaintiffs were not the persons who managed the joint family business. If then the Plaintiffs were, as the evidence shows, the managers of the joint family business they could sue in their own names on behalf of the business. The learned Counsel for the Respondent was not able to cite any authority to support the suggestion that a 'Karta' of a joint family business cannot sue alone in his own name on behalf of the business and that all the members of the joint family must join in the suit as Plaintiffs. It was conceded by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the suit would have been in proper form if the Plaintiff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in -'Venkata Rao v. Satyanarayanamurty' AIR 1943 Mad 698 (FB) (A) on which the learned Single Judge relied, and with which I respectfully agree. Order 41, Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure permits a Respondent to support the decree appealed from on any of the grounds decided against him in the Court below. When a Respondent accepting the decision of the Court below, resists the Appellant's further claim by saying that the decree of the Court below should not be disturbed as it erred in favour of the Appellant the Respondent really supports the decree in his favour to the extent to which the Court, below had disallowed the claim of the Appellant. 4. For the above reasons the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
