Skip to content


Ramalingam Chetty Vs. Veerayya Chetty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.939
AppellantRamalingam Chetty
RespondentVeerayya Chetty and anr.
Cases ReferredMajan v. Pathu Kutti
Excerpt:
oath - form--proposal in one form--performance insisted in another form. - .....by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff insisted on his taking the oath in another form. the form of oath by which the plaintiff offered to be bound is not before me but it is not suggested that it provided that the light should be extinguished, as the plaintiff insisted should be extinguished, by being blown out i he present case is not on all fours with umayammai v. muthiah nadar 17 m.l.j. 99, where the plaintiff prevented the oath being taken by not appearing and performing his part the ceremony in the present case the plaintiff appeared but insisted that the oath should be taken in a form not specified in the proposal as to the form of oath by which he agreed to be bound. i think, however i do not find anything in etakkot mathumkutti mammad's kutti's son majan v. pathu kutti 17.....
Judgment:

Arnold White, C.J.

1. I think the Munsif in effect, though he does not say so in so many words, held that the defendant was will to take the oath in the form proposed by the Plaintiff and that the plaintiff insisted on his taking the oath in another form. The form of oath by which the plaintiff offered to be bound is not before me but it is not suggested that it provided that the light should be extinguished, as the plaintiff insisted should be extinguished, by being blown out I he present case is not on all fours with Umayammai v. Muthiah Nadar 17 M.L.J. 99, where the Plaintiff prevented the oath being Taken by not appearing and performing his part the ceremony In the present case the plaintiff appeared but insisted that the oath should be taken in a form not specified in the proposal as to the form of oath by which he agreed to be bound. I think, however I do not find anything in Etakkot Mathumkutti Mammad's Kutti's son Majan v. Pathu Kutti 17 M.L.J. 546, which conflicts with this view.

2. I think the Munsif was right.

3. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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