SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1909 Supreme(Mad) 241

Ramaiengar and Vedantachari minor by next friend, A. Rangasawmi Iyengar – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary of State for India in Council represented by the Collector of Chingleput – Respondent


JUDGMENT

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top