Skip to content


Raghuraj Singh Vs. Sham Dei and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All51
AppellantRaghuraj Singh
RespondentSham Dei and anr.
Excerpt:
.....higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the..........arranged and the suit for recovery was due to the fact of that marriage having fallen through. the learned judge of the small cause court dismissed the suit on the merits, having heard it fully.2. this application in civil revision is now made by the plaintiff urging that the jurisdiction of the court of small causes was ousted by clause 35, sub-clause (g) of schedule 2 of the provincial small causes courts act. that clause bars the trial of suits for compensation for breach of contract of betrothal or promise of marriage.3. in view of the fact that part of the claim was for money which it was alleged had been expended in preliminary marriage ceremonies i think that the clause in question would, if appealed to, by either party or if it had come to the notice of the learned judge earlier,.....
Judgment:

Boys, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff sued for return of ornaments and for certain money expended. The ornaments are said to have been given and the money is said to have been expanded in consequence of a marriage which had been arranged and the suit for recovery was due to the fact of that marriage having fallen through. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court dismissed the suit on the merits, having heard it fully.

2. This application in Civil revision is now made by the plaintiff urging that the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes was ousted by Clause 35, Sub-clause (g) of Schedule 2 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. That clause bars the trial of suits for compensation for breach of contract of betrothal or promise of marriage.

3. In view of the fact that part of the claim was for money which it was alleged had been expended in preliminary marriage ceremonies I think that the clause in question would, if appealed to, by either party or if it had come to the notice of the learned Judge earlier, have been a bar to the trial of the suit by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court. On the other hand, the suit was tried out fully by him on the merits without any objection by either party and without the point having come otherwise to his notice.

4. Under these circumstances I think that this Court should not interfere and in that view I am supported by the case in Ram Lai v. Kabul Singh (1902) 25 All. 135. The application is dismissed with costs.


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