Skip to content


Muthuvellu Chettiar Vs. T. Govindaswamy Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Mad781a
AppellantMuthuvellu Chettiar
RespondentT. Govindaswamy Chettiar
Cases Referred and Lcaroyd v. Brook
Excerpt:
- .....father, he is entitled to the earnings of their labour.2. see also ex parte macklin [1755] 28 e.r. 430. so i cannot allow this point to be taken for the first time in this revision petition. as regards the second point, the plaintiff on record is not a minor, neither is the defendant on record a minor. so the bar under section 13, madras village courts act, does not apply to the suit. therefore i am unable to uphold either of the contentions raised by the petitioners' learned advocate as the record stands at present. i accordingly dismiss the revision petition.
Judgment:

Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.

1. Two points were argued in this revision petition as covered by ground 4 of the revision petition. The first point viz., whether the plaintiff (father) could maintain the suit, was not raised in either of the lower Courts (the Village Court or District Munsif's Court), and it requires facts for its elucidation. Further, I find by reference to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 17, page 70, para. 190, and Bullon and Leake's Precedents of Pleadings (5th Edition), page 624, that the father of an apprentice who is a minor could in certain circumstances maintain suits against the master of the apprentice. For instances of such suits, 1) may refer to Phillips v. Clift [1859] 127 E.R. 801 and Lcaroyd v. Brook [1891] 1 Q.B. 431. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 17, p. 118 para. 275 it is stated:

that while infant children live with and are maintained by their father, he is entitled to the earnings of their labour.

2. See also Ex parte Macklin [1755] 28 E.R. 430. So I cannot allow this point to be taken for the first time in this revision petition. As regards the second point, the plaintiff on record is not a minor, neither is the defendant on record a minor. So the bar under Section 13, Madras Village Courts Act, does not apply to the suit. Therefore I am unable to uphold either of the contentions raised by the petitioners' learned advocate as the record stands at present. I accordingly dismiss the revision petition.


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