The main legal point established is that compliance with procedural requirements, such as notice provisions under relevant Acts, is mandatory and failure to comply can lead to the dismissal of a suit.

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. This is an appeal brought by the plaintiffs who are the present trustees of Sri Parthasarathiswami Temple, Triplicane, against a decree of the City Civil Court dismissing their suit to evict the respondents from certain lands belonging to the temple after terminating their tenancy. Various defences were raised by the respondents which were all decided against them by the lower Court except the plea of multifariousness which was upheld. It would appear that the learned Judge gave the appellants an opportunity to amend the plaint (if so advised) so as to Cure the defect in the frame of the suit) but as the appellants failed to do so, he dismissed the suit.

2. The facts may be briefly stated. In 1882, the then trustees demised the suit land measuring 8 cawnies 9 grounds and 2160 square feet in four equal parcels to four brothers who were the ancestors of the respondents, under four separate muchilikas on the same terms. Each lease comprised 2 grounds and 90 square feet of house site and 2 cawnies and 1050" square feet of cultivable land and each lessee agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 2-8-0 for the house site, Rs. 7-8-3 for the cultivable land and Rs. 1-12-0 for the usufruct of the trees or a total rent of Rs. 11-12-3 and to surrender possession at the end of the term which was one year, fasli 1292. The lessees, however, continued in possession- of the lands respectively let to them even after the expiry of the fasli as tenants from year to year paying the same rent, and after their death, their descendants, the respondents were also allowed to hold the lands on the same terms. Notices to quit, dated 21st December, 1935, were issued to the respondents demanding vacant possession of the lands in their respective possession at the expiry of fasli 1345 that is, on the 30th June, 1936 and the respondents not having surrendered the lands, the suit was filed in September; 1936 for ejecting them from possession.

3. The defendants put in a joint written statement alleging that they and their ancestors had been in possession of the lands for over a hundred and fifty years and that they were entitled to permanent rights of occupancy. They also alleged that they were in separate possession and enjoyment of different portions of the lands without any community of interest, paying the annual rent to the temple separately, and that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. They further pleaded that they were entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection, Act as the lands are in the Mambalam Town Extension area and that the notices to quit alleged to have been given by the appellants were bad in law. They also claimed compensation for improvements alleged to have been effected by them in case they were to be evicted.

4. Mr. Panchapagesa Sastri, who appeared for the appellants attacked the finding of the Court below that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. He explained that the appellants had no means of ascertaining which defendant or defendants were in possession of the lands respectively leased to the four brothers in 1882 as the defendants have been dividing the lands among themselves and changing the allotments from time to time according to their convenience and that the appellants were therefore unable to bring separate suits for recovery of different portions of the land. He urged that the frame of the suit was warranted by the provisions of Order 1, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code as the appellants right to relief arose out of the same act or transaction, viz., the unlawful detention by the respondents of the suit property belonging to the temple after the tenancies were duly terminated, and common questions of law and fact would arise if separate suits were brought against them Various decisions--some of them not easy to reconcile--were cited on either side but it seems to me that no useful purpose would be served by a detailed examination of these