Skip to content


Chinna Narasiah Vs. Mangamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1904)14MLJ340
AppellantChinna Narasiah
RespondentMangamma
Cases ReferredGovindayyar v. Doraisami I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - the second appeals fail and we dismiss them......away or conferring any right of action, its enactments, unless in express terms they apply to pending actions, do not affect them. but there is an exception to this rule, namely, where enactments merely affect procedure, but do not extend to rights of action' per jessel m.r. in in be joseph suche and co. 1 ch. d. 50.4. there is nothing in the wording of section 21, madras act iii of 1895, to negative the application of this general rule.5. the only other point urged by the appellant is that the adoption of the 2nd plaintiff by his uncle was invalid, because the natural parents and the adoptive father of the 2nd plaintiff were under pollution owing to the birth of the 2nd plaintiff and the death of the wife of the adoptive father.6. the adoptive father and the 2nd plaintiff being of.....
Judgment:

1. In these cases the Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suits when they were instituted, viz., on the 30th June 1897.

2. Madras Act, II of 1894, was extended to the office of Village Accountant in the Venkatagiri Estate during the pendency of the suits; but this did not take away the jurisdiction of the LJourt to decide the suits then pending before it and thus take away the plaintiff's right of action in the ordinary Civil Courts.

3. It is a general rule that when the Legislature alters the rights of parties by taking away or conferring any right of action, its enactments, Unless in express terms they apply to pending actions, do not affect them. But there is an exception to this rule, namely, where enactments merely affect procedure, but do not extend to rights of action' per Jessel M.R. in In Be Joseph Suche and Co. 1 Ch. D. 50.

4. There is nothing in the wording of Section 21, Madras Act III of 1895, to negative the application of this general rule.

5. The only other point urged by the appellant is that the adoption of the 2nd plaintiff by his uncle was invalid, because the natural parents and the adoptive father of the 2nd plaintiff were under pollution owing to the birth of the 2nd plaintiff and the death of the wife of the adoptive father.

6. The adoptive father and the 2nd plaintiff being of the same gotra the religious ceremony of datta homam was not necessary. Govindayyar v. Doraisami I.L.R. 11 M. 5. That being so the adoption was not invalid. The second appeals fail and we dismiss them.


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