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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 384

ABDUR RAHMAN
Valli Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Arunachala Moopanar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Abdur Rahman, J.

1. When the trial of a suit for a declaration that a certain alienation by defendant 1 as a widow would not affect the plaintiffs reversionary interests was about to commence, he challenged her (defendant 1) to take a special oath in a temple where camphor was to be lighted by him and extinguished by her while taking the oath. This offer was duly accepted by defendant 1 and the trial Court consequently appointed a Commissioner to administer the oath in the form proposed by the plaintiff. The date and time were fixed for the purpose, but on account of certain negotiations between the parties to have the matter settled otherwise, the oath could not be administered and the Commissioner submitted a report to the Court and related the circumstances in which the order of the Court could not be carried out. Since the defendant was willing to take the oath, the trial Court ordered the plaintiff to pay another fee to the Commissioner, which he declined to do and his suit was accordingly dismissed. As the plaintiff was not prepared to abide by his agreement the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Subordinate Judge at Sivaganga. He then filed a second appeal

























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