Skip to content


Manji and ors. Vs. Paramayya Hebbara - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ618
AppellantManji and ors.
RespondentParamayya Hebbara
Cases ReferredAyakannu Nadar v. Muthia Nadar
Excerpt:
- munro, j.1. i doubt if any question of jurisdiction arises in this case, but, assuming such a question arises, i think the sub-judge is right on the question regarding the oath. though the plaintiff agreed generally to abide by the oath of the defendants and the defendants agreed to take an oath in any form or in any place, still the form and place were never actually agreed upon. it is clear from section 10 of the oaths act that the agreement as to the oath must be such that the court is in a position to administer it forthwith. if, however, the form and place have not been settled, the court cannot administer it ayakannu nadar v. muthia nadar (1906) 17 m.l.j. 99 is distinguished on the ground that there the form of the oath had been agreed upon.2. the petition is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Munro, J.

1. I doubt if any question of jurisdiction arises in this case, but, assuming such a question arises, I think the Sub-Judge is right on the question regarding the oath. Though the plaintiff agreed generally to abide by the oath of the defendants and the defendants agreed to take an oath in any form or in any place, still the form and place were never actually agreed upon. It is clear from Section 10 of the Oaths Act that the agreement as to the oath must be such that the court is in a position to administer it forthwith. If, however, the form and place have not been settled, the court cannot administer it Ayakannu Nadar v. Muthia Nadar (1906) 17 M.L.J. 99 is distinguished on the ground that there the form of the oath had been agreed upon.

2. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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