Civil Procedure - Parties - Disjoinder - Separate defendants - Different
 causes of action.

Plaintiff was occupant of three strip~ of land, all located
within one plot. Plaintiff olaimed all tr~ee strips by prescription.
The claim to one strip directly affeoted all defendants, but the
second affected a third party who had derived title from defendants
and the third affected only one of the defendants.

~: Since the three claims affected separ at e defendants and
separate areas of land and constituted three distinct causes of
action, they should be disjoined for separate trials.

Action.

!~b, 2~'i;:'19fiOr',l?UJiim' :ili.trtrtct \J.MgC-¹The plaintiff Ali Mousa instituted
this suit on Jonu~J 6, 1945 for C', declaration of m-mership of three
distinct strips of land included in plot Noo40 He~er Registration
~ectioni of the old Gitteina Merkaz, registered in the names of the
defendc:mts, heir<> of Ali Idrio Noun El Bal.ad , The total area of the
strips claimed by plaintiff 'l'laS shown to be approximately 30 feddans,
whiloe the \'Thole area of the plot Has ahown to be approxdmat e'Ly 112.555
feddans. A sk~t'ch showing the vlhole plot and the 3 strips claimed by
plaintiff is attached and marked "L".

In the oourse of the trial it has be~ revealed that plaintiff's
claim against the defendant heirs of Ali IQris Nour El Balad directly

'affeots one vf .the three plots claimed by him and that plot is marked
"A" on the sketch. The other plots marked "B" and "c" are not directly
olaimed against the said defendants - plaintiff's claim in r~spect of
plot "B" lies against certain Awlad Saeed, who are alleged to have

* Court, Duebl District 'Judge. Judge's name unknown.

derived their title from the defendants, and the claim in respect of

plot "c" lies against a certain Hohnmed Osman, one of the said defendants,
and not against the Nhole defendants. The cla.ims in respect of plots "B"
and "c" involve different causes of actions and therefore they have been
dismissed from this trial and a separate trial for each claim is
entertained. This case therefore deals only ;-lith plaintiff's claim in

,/ respect of plot "A", part of plot No , 40 Hemayye r Registrat ion Area.

The court then proceeded to revieu the facts concerning plaintiff's
claim as to plot "A" and concluded th.'1t a valid pr-eo cr i.pt Ive claim had
been established. Judgment for the pla.int iff was therefore granted.

Decree a.ccordingly.