Skip to content


G.T. Gilmore Vs. State of Travancore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.444; (1912)23MLJ605
AppellantG.T. Gilmore
RespondentState of Travancore
Cases Referred and Strousberg v. Republic Costa Rica
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act of 1908), sections 85 and 87 - sovereign prince or ruling chief, suit against--consent of governor-general in council--private international law--suit against foreign state. - .....is a 'sovereign prince or baling chief' within the meaning of sections 85 to 87 of the code of civil procedure, and may not be sued in our courts without the consent of the governor-general in council, which admittedly has not been given in this case.4. it is contended that the present suit is not against the maharajah, but against the state of travancore, or the dawan as representing the state.5. we do not think that any such distinction can be drawn.6. the code of civil procedure makes no provision for suits against such a state apart from its prince or chief, and we have not been referred to any precedent for such a suit.7. we are of opinion that no such suit will lie under the code of civil procedure. apart from its provisions, it is clear that under the well established rules of.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal against the order of Wallis, J., on the original side dismissing the plaintiff's suit under Rule 57, of the Original Side Rules, which provides that when the plaint discloses no reasonable cause of action or is vexatious, the Judge may strike out the plaint and dismiss the suit.

2. The claim is to recover the sum of Rs. 94,000 from the State of Travancore, or Dewan of Travancore, as damages for wrongful dismissal from the service of that State.

3. His Highness the Maharajah of Travancore is a 'Sovereign Prince or Baling Chief' within the meaning of Sections 85 to 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and may not be sued in our Courts without the consent of the Governor-General in Council, which admittedly has not been given in this case.

4. It is contended that the present suit is not against the Maharajah, but against the State of Travancore, or the Dawan as representing the State.

5. We do not think that any such distinction can be drawn.

6. The Code of Civil Procedure makes no provision for suits against such a State apart from its Prince or Chief, and we have not been referred to any precedent for such a suit.

7. We are of opinion that no such suit will lie under the Code of Civil Procedure. Apart from its provisions, it is clear that under the well established rules of International Law, no such suit will lie. It is only necessary to refer to the cases of Beer Chunder Manikya v. Raj Coomar Nobodeep Chunder Deb Burmono 12 C.L.R. 465 and Strousberg v. Republic Costa Rica 29 W.R. 125.

8. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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