( 213. )
WYREMUTTU v. EUYATAMBY.
D. C., Batticaloa, 1,696.
■ Civil Procedure Code, e. 32, subs.'2—Joinder of causes of action.
Plaintiff, in his personal capacity, and as administrator of the' estate of his deceased wife, sued defendant on a bond oh whichplaintiff and his wife were obligees. With that claim plaintiffjoined a diaim as administrator of his deceased wife for a goldornament which 'belong to his wife, and which was in defendant’spossession.
Held, that the joinder of these two claims in one action, was notobnoxious to.sub-section 2 of section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Per Withers, J.—If plaintiff was suing for the gold ornamentin his personal capacity, he could not well join his claim for itwith the other cause of action.
^ | THE facts of the case sufficiently appear in Jhe judgments.
Wendt, for appellant.
Sampayo, for respondent.
8th October, 1896. Bonsek, C. j.—
The District Judge has made a mistake in rejecting this plaint.The plaintiff is the administrator of his deceased wife. He andhis wife were joint obligees of a bond given by the defendants.The plaintiff in his'personal capacity, and also as administrator ofhis deceased wife, sues on the bond. With that claim he joins aclaim as administrator of-his deceased wife for a gold ornamentbelonging to his wife, which is in the possession of the defendants.The District Judge has held that these.two causes of action cannotbe joined in one suit.
It seems to me that he has misunderstood section 35, sub-section2, of the Civil Procedure Code.
• The defendant should be called upon to answer.
The plaintiff will have his costs both in the Court below and inthis Court.
I concur. The Judge was perhaps misled by the impression thattho plaintiff was suing for the restoration of the thdli in his privatecapacity. If he was so suing he could not very well havejoined this with the other cause of action. The circumstancesdisclosed in the plaint show that the plaintiff was suing for therecovery of the thdli in a representative capacity. In fact it isonly as administrator of his wife’s estate that he can claim therestoration of this article from the defendants, who, he says,unlawfully detain it:
WYREMUTTU v. ELIYATAMBY