Skip to content


Hakim Muhammad Ashruff HussaIn Saheb and ors. Vs. Syed Muhammad Ali Saheb - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad652
AppellantHakim Muhammad Ashruff HussaIn Saheb and ors.
RespondentSyed Muhammad Ali Saheb
Excerpt:
madras city civil court act - act vii of 1892, section 3--jurisdiction--suit for 'breach of promise of marriage'--contract, of marriage between intended bridegroom and parent of intended bride--cognizable by small cause court--presidency small cause courts act--act xv of 1882, section 19(q). - - the suit is not a suit for breach of promise of marriage within the meaning of article (q) of section 19 of the presidency small cause courts act, for the phrase there used must clearly have referred to the action for breach of promise of marriage as understood in english law.1. of the several causes of action alleged in the plaint the only one which could possibly be excluded from the jurisdiction of the small cause court would be the claim in respect of damages for breach of promise of marriage.2. but the contract here alleged is a contract between the parent of the girl intended to be married and the intended bridegroom. the suit is not a suit for breach of promise of marriage within the meaning of article (q) of section 19 of the presidency small cause courts act, for the phrase there used must clearly have referred to the action for breach of promise of marriage as understood in english law. seeing that the city civil court had no jurisdiction, we must set aside the decree and direct the return of the plaint.3. we make no order as to costs.
Judgment:

1. Of the several causes of action alleged in the plaint the only one which could possibly be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court would be the claim in respect of damages for breach of promise of marriage.

2. But the contract here alleged is a contract between the parent of the girl intended to be married and the intended bridegroom. The suit is not a suit for breach of promise of marriage within the meaning of Article (q) of Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, for the phrase there used must clearly have referred to the action for breach of promise of marriage as understood in English law. Seeing that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction, we must set aside the decree and direct the return of the plaint.

3. We make no order as to costs.


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