Mutuvelu Chettiar Vs. T. Govindaswami Chettiar - Court Judgment
|Judge||Ananthakrishna Iyer, J.|
|Respondent||T. Govindaswami Chettiar|
|Cases Referred|| and Learoyed v. Brook|
master and apprentice - father of minor apprentice, right of, to sue for minor's wage--madras village courts act (i of 1889), section 13(5)--bar on ground of minority. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to..........is entitled to the earnings of their labour.' see also exparte macklin (1755) 2 ves. sen. 675 : 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 of the madras village courts act does not apply to the suit.2. therefore, i am unable to uphold either of the intentions raised by the petitioners' learned advocate as the record stands at present. i accordingly dismiss the revision petition.
Ananthakrishna Iyer, J.
1. The points were argued in this revision petition are covered by ground No. 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 Volume XVII, page, 70 para. 193, and Bullen and Leake's Precedents of pleading (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 suit, I may refer to Phillips v. Clift (1859) 127 E.R. 801 : 4 H. & M. 168 : 28 L.J. Ex. 153 : 5 Jur. (N.S.) 74 : 7 W.R. 295 : 118 R.R. 368 and Learoyed v. Brook (1891) 1 Q.B. 431 : 60 L.J.Q.B. 373 : 64 L.T. 458 : 39 W.R. 480 : 55 J.P. 265. In Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. XVII page. 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.' See also Exparte Macklin (1755) 2 Ves. Sen. 675 : 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 of the Madras Village Courts Act does not apply to the suit.
2. Therefore, I am unable to uphold either of the intentions raised by the petitioners' learned Advocate as the record stands at present. I accordingly dismiss the revision petition.