Back
1909 Supreme(Mad) 241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Ramaiengar and Vedantachari minor by next friend, A. Rangasawmi Iyengar
Versus
The Secretary of State for India in Council represented by the Collector of Chingleput
Decided On : 22.09.1909
The court established that the liability to pay costs was imposed as a penalty for the father's immoral act in bringing a false suit, and the debt incurred was tainted with immorality, relieving the sons from the obligation to pay. Additionally, the liability imposed on the father may be regarded as in the nature of a fine, which sons are not bound to pay under Hindu Law.
Headnote:
Costs - Civil Procedure Code - Liability of Father for Immoral Act
Fact of the Case:
The father of the appellant brought a suit to establish adoption and recover property. The alleged adoption was found to be false, and the suit was dismissed. The father was directed to pay costs due to the Government under Section 440 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The liability to pay costs was imposed as a penalty for the father's misconduct in bringing a false suit. The debt incurred was tainted with immorality, and the sons were not bound to pay. The liability imposed on the father may be regarded as in the nature of a fine, which sons are not bound to pay under Hindu Law.
Issues: Liability of father for costs due to false suit, applicability of Section 440 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the nature of the debt incurred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the liability to pay costs was imposed as a penalty for the father's immoral act in bringing a false suit. The debt incurred was tainted with immorality, and the sons were not bound to pay. Additionally, the liability imposed on the father may be regarded as in the nature of a fine, which sons are not bound to pay under Hindu Law.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the plaintiffs were given a decree as prayed for, with costs throughout.
1.The father of the appellant in these two appeals brought a suit in forma pauperis as next friend of one of the appellants to establish his adoption and recover possession of property. The alleged adoption was found to be false, the suit was dismissed, and the father of the appellants was directed, under Section 440, Civil Procedure Code to pay the costs due to Government. Now the reason why the appellants father was made liable for these costs was that he had been guilty of what was certainly an immoral act in bringing a suit which he must have known to be false. The liability to pay the costs was clearly imposed as a penalty for his misconduct and the debt thus incurred is tainted with immorality and the sons are not bound to pay. Again under Hindu Law, among debts which sons are not bound to pay are fines (see MayneS Hindu Law-, 7th edition, page 389) and in this case the liability imposed upon the appellants father may also be regarded as in the nature of a fine. We, therefore, allow these appeals and give the plaintiffs a decree as prayed for, with costs throughout.
