Srimana Vikraman and Another vs Rayan and Others

The only point urged is that the Subordinate Judge was in error in reversing the whole decree when only two of the defendants appealed, one of

whom withdrew from the appeal and reliance is placed on the wording of Section 544, Civil Procedure Code, and a case reported, Boydonath

Surmah v. Ojan Bibee 11 W.R., 238. That case is not on all fours with the present. The ground common to all the defendants was that the plaintiff

was not the jenmi and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 never held under him. The first and second defendants disclaimed all interest. The third

defendant claimed to be the jenmi and the eighth defendant, the appellant in the Lower Appellate Court, claimed as kanomdar under the third

defendant. The decree of the District Munsif proceeded on the ground that the plaintiffs were the jenmis and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 held

under them. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 having disclaimed all interest, the only substantial defendants were the third and eighth. We cannot,

therefore, say that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in reversing the decree of the Court of First Instance on the appeal of one of the defendants

alone. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.