Skip to content


Sathiavel Pillai Vs. Sivasami Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad344
AppellantSathiavel Pillai
RespondentSivasami Pillai
Cases ReferredRoopji & Sons v. Dyer Meanken
Excerpt:
- .....had from the defendant.2. it is contended in revision that no alternative relief on the footing of quantum meruit having been asked for, the lower court had no jurisdiction to grant any. i agree with that contention. krishna prosad sinha v. purnendu narain sinha (1912) 11 ic 820, is a much stronger case, because the service there was admitted. it was held that the plea of quantum meruit not having been raised, it could not be granted: see also roopji & sons v. dyer meanken & co. ltd. : air1930all545 . the plaintiff's own evidence shows that he entered on the work knowing nothing about it and learned it under a man employed by the defendant. he was getting board, and i can find in the circumstances no evidence at all from which it could be inferred with any certainty to what, if any,.....
Judgment:

Walsh, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff, the brother in law of the defendant, claimed that he worked in the press of the latter for about 10 months on contract at Rs. 10 a month for wages. The contract was denied, and the Court found that it was not proved. However his claim was decreed at Rs. 5 a month, in addition to the boarding which he admittedly had from the defendant.

2. It is contended in revision that no alternative relief on the footing of quantum meruit having been asked for, the lower Court had no jurisdiction to grant any. I agree with that contention. Krishna Prosad Sinha v. Purnendu Narain Sinha (1912) 11 IC 820, is a much stronger case, because the service there was admitted. It was held that the plea of quantum meruit not having been raised, it could not be granted: see also Roopji & Sons v. Dyer Meanken & Co. Ltd. : AIR1930All545 . The plaintiff's own evidence shows that he entered on the work knowing nothing about it and learned it under a man employed by the defendant. He was getting board, and I can find in the circumstances no evidence at all from which it could be inferred with any certainty to what, if any, wages the plaintiff would be entitled. But it is unnecessary to go further into the facts of the case. The civil revision petition is allowed and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout.


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