Skip to content


Prahlad Chandra Das Vs. Dwarka Nath Ghose - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1910)ILR37Cal860
AppellantPrahlad Chandra Das
RespondentDwarka Nath Ghose
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredAklemannessa Bibi v. Mahomed Hatem
Excerpt:
adoption - valuation of suit--suit to set aside adoption--munsif, jurisdiction of--forum--practice. - .....of jurisdiction, a suit to set aside an adoption is incapable of valuation. the practice has always been that it is competent to the plaintiff to value the relief claimed in his suit, and that valuation has been taken to determine the forum of the court to decide the suit. in our opinion, therefore, this point taken in support of the appeal fails.2. we have gone through the judgment of the lower appellate court, and we think that, on the merits as determined by the findings of that court, the defendants have really no case we see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

Brett and Richardson, JJ.

1. The main point which has been taken in support of this appeal is that the lower Appellate Court erred in law in holding that a suit to set aside an adoption was entertain able by the Munsif's Court. It appears that the suit was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 1,235, and that the Munsif in whose Court it was instituted exercised jurisdiction in all suits not exceeding Rs. 2,000 in value. In support of the appellant's contention, the decision of this Court in the case of Aklemannessa Bibee v. Mahomed Hatem (1904) I.L.R. 31 Calc. 849 has been relied on. This Court has, however, in the later case of Jan Mahomed Mandal v. Mashar Bibi (1907) I.L.R. 34, pointed out that the decision in the case of Aklemannessa Bibi v. Mahomed Hatem (1904) I.L.R. 31 Calc. 849 as to the jurisdiction of the Munsif to entertain a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, is an obiter dictum. We have studied carefully the judgments of this Court in these two cases, and we are of opinion that the view taken in the latter case that the decision in the former case was not one which was necessary for the purposes of disposing of that case, and, therefore, it was an obiter dictum, is correct. We see no reason to depart from what appears to have been the practice in this province for a number of years and which has been accepted as the practice in other provinces, and to hold that, for the purposes of jurisdiction, a suit to set aside an adoption is incapable of valuation. The practice has always been that it is competent to the plaintiff to value the relief claimed in his suit, and that valuation has been taken to determine the forum of the Court to decide the suit. In our opinion, therefore, this point taken in support of the appeal fails.

2. We have gone through the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, and we think that, on the merits as determined by the findings of that Court, the defendants have really no case We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.


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