Skip to content


Madhavrao Visvanath Nimalkar Vs. Shrikrishan Govindrao Kirtikar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in79Ind.Cas.517
AppellantMadhavrao Visvanath Nimalkar
RespondentShrikrishan Govindrao Kirtikar
Excerpt:
presidency small cause courts act (xv of 1882), section 19 (g) - suit for return of ornaments given at betrothal--jurisdiction. - - such a suit in england is brought against a party who has failed to perform a promise to marry......that according to the custom he gave at the time of betrothal two lugadas one polka and a gold ring of the aggregate value of rs. 54, and spent rs. 30 over and above the value of these articles. eventually the defendant said he would not celebrate the marriage of his daughter with the plaintiff, hence the suit.2. the trial court held that the suit was excluded from the jurisdiction of the small cause court under section 19(q) of the presidency small cause courts act, treating it as a suit for compensation for breach of promise of marriage. such a suit in england is brought against a party who has failed to perform a promise to marry. a suit for the return of ornaments presented by custom by the prospective bridegroom at the time of betrothal is a suit of an entirely different.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Small Cause Court, Bombay, (alleging that he had been betrothed to the defendant's daughter; that according to the custom he gave at the time of betrothal two Lugadas one polka and a gold ring of the aggregate value of Rs. 54, and spent Rs. 30 over and above the value of these articles. Eventually the defendant said he would not celebrate the marriage of his daughter with the plaintiff, hence the suit.

2. The Trial Court held that the suit was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under Section 19(q) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, treating it as a suit for compensation for breach of promise of marriage. Such a suit in England is brought against a party who has failed to perform a promise to marry. A suit for the return of ornaments presented by custom by the prospective bridegroom at the time of betrothal is a suit of an entirely different nature. We see no reason why we should hold that it is a suit for compensation for breach of promise of marriage we think, therefore, that with regard to the claim for the return of the two Lugadas, the polka and gold ring, of the value thereof, the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction. The rule will be made absolute and the suit remanded to that Court for disposal on the merits, with costs here and in the full Court on the opponent.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //