Skip to content


Manika Naiker Vs. Swarnathammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.547
AppellantManika Naiker
RespondentSwarnathammal and ors.
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), schedule ii, article 38 - 'maintenance', meaning of--suit by guardian of person against guardian of property to recover money for minor's education--jurisdiction. - .....of the judge as to the receipt, exhibit i. there is, however, little to support the view of the judge that the 2nd defendant was a party to the fabrication. the judge finds that the gumashta of the 2nd defendant is a worthless person' and possibly, the 2nd defendant was deceived by his gumashta and bona fide relieved that the gumashta paid the guardian and got the receipt. having regard to the respectable position of the. 2nd defendant, who is an executive engineer, i do not think this passage in the judgement of the district munsif ought to stand. i am not prepared, to interfere with the order as to costs.5. the petition fails and is dismissed with costs of plaintiff (1st respondent).
Judgment:

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. The amount claimed was payable under an order of the District Court by the guardian of the property of a minor to the guardian of his person for the education and maintenance of the minor. The suit is by the guardian of the person to recover the amount payable for two months against the present guardian of the property and the former guardian who alleged that the amount was paid. I do not think the suit is one for maintenance within the meaning of Article 38 of the Schedule to the Small Cause Courts Act.

2. The minor was solely entitled to the property and an order of Court applying a portion of the income for his support would not be maintenance paid to him by the guardian. For the purpose of Article 38 the word 'maintenance' means a sum of money payable by a person under an obligation to support another, either by the general law to which he is subject or under a specific contract.

3. The question raised by the petitioner as to want of jurisdiction, therefore, fails.

4. On the merits, I see no ground to set aside the finding of the Judge as to the receipt, Exhibit I. There is, however, little to support the view of the Judge that the 2nd defendant was a party to the fabrication. The Judge finds that the gumashta of the 2nd defendant is a worthless person' and possibly, the 2nd defendant was deceived by his gumashta and bona fide Relieved that the gumashta paid the guardian and got the receipt. Having regard to the respectable position of the. 2nd defendant, who is an Executive Engineer, I do not think this passage in the judgement of the District Munsif ought to stand. I am not prepared, to interfere with the order as to costs.

5. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs of plaintiff (1st respondent).


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