Mudaly Appuhamy vs Tikerala – clr volume 2 page 035_2

The case between Mudaly Appuhamy (Plaintiff) and Tikerala (Defendant) addressed the procedural requirements regarding the sufficiency of particulars in a plaint, specifically relating to disclosure of title and identification of co-owners. It was held that objections for want of particulars must be raised by prompt motion rather than by plea after answering the merits. The judgment clarified that deficiencies in title disclosures are at the risk of the plaintiff and must be addressed before further pleadings proceed. The order removing the plaint from the file was set aside, and the case was remanded with permission for the plaintiff to amend the plaint. This decision reaffirmed that proper procedural steps are crucial in civil pleadings and that late objections after answering on the meri