MATHUR, C.J. :- This revision arises out of Suit No. 151 of 1965 instituted by Smt. Janki Devi in the Kanpur courts in respect of properties situate not only in Kanpur but also in other districts over which the Civil Judge of Kanpur has no territorial jurisdiction. One of the objections raised to the trial of the suit was about the mis-joinder of causes of action and mis-joinder of the parties. Issue No. 8 framed in this connection is as below:-

"Is the suit bad for multifarious ness?" The learned Civil Judge recorded a finding that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action and directed the plaintiff to remove the defects within 15 days.

2. The material facts of the case are that Ram Swarup and his brother Nanhu Mal carried on business jointly at Rangoon and acquired many properties. Nanhu Mal died in 1922 leaving behind his widow Smt. Kalawati. It is said that after the death of Nanhu Mal, Ram swarup managed the property with the consent of the widow Smt. Kalawati. Ram Swarup died issueless in 1938 leaving behind his widow Smt. Indra Devi. Thereafter, the nephew of Ram Swarup and Nanhu Mal, namely, the sons of another deceased brother Dwarika Prasad, instituted Suit No. 165 of 1946 against Smt. Indra Devi and Smt. Kalawati, which was compromised and the entire property was given to Smt. Indra Devi with a limited ownership for her lifetime. Nanhu Mal had two daughters, Smt. Parbati Devi and Smt. Janki Devi (Plaintiff). The case of Smt. Janki Devi is that even on the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act Smt. Indra Devi had merely a life estate and did not become absolute owner of the properties. Smt. Indra Devi died in July, 1961. The plaintiff' case is that on her death properties acquired by her under the compromise were inherited by the three sons of Dwarika Prasad and two daughters of Nanhu Mal each having l/5th share. Smt. Janki Devi thus claimed l/5th share and prayed for partition of her share in the entire property.

3. Smt. Indra Devi executed a deed of trust of certain properties in the year 1938 and two deeds of trust in 1958 appointing defendants 1 and 2 as Sarvarakars. She also transferred House No. 106/344, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur to Sheo Narain on 3-8-1959; and House No. 106/164, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur to Surendra Singh on 3-1-1959. The transferees on their part made a will or transfer in favour of others. The plaintiff is challenging the two deeds of trust of 1958 on the ground of fraud. Sheo Narain executed a will in respect of the said house in favour of his sister' son Dhannamal. Dhannamal transferred the said house No. 106/344 in favour of Phool Chand Shukla. The plaintiff is challenging the genuineness of the will in favour of Dhannamal. The transfer made by Dhannamal is also challenged on the ground that it is collusive, illegal and without any authority. Surendra Singh on his part transferred House No. 106/164 to Smt. Padmawati, defendant.

4. The plaintiff, in addition, has Claimed l/5th share in the profits already availed of by the various defendants.

5. The question for consideration is whether a single suit in respect of the various transfers, all the more when the properties lie in different territorial jurisdiction is maintainable before the Kanpur Courts.

Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as below:-

"Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immoveable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate:

Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court."

Similarly, Order I, rule 3, provides who may be joined as defendants and this rule is as below:-

"All persons may be joined as defendants against whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exis