Manji and ors. Vs. Paramayya Hebbara

Manji and ors. vs Paramayya Hebbara

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 20, 1911

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/785068

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/785068
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Jan 20, 1911
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manji and ors.

Respondent

Paramayya Hebbara

Legal References

Cases Referred: Ayakannu Nadar v. Muthia Nadar
Reported In: (1911)21MLJ618

Excerpt

- munro, j.1. i doubt if any question of jurisdiction arises in this case, but, assuming such a question arises, i think the sub-judge is right on the question regarding the oath. though the plaintiff agreed generally to abide by the oath of the defendants and the defendants agreed to take an oath in any form or in any place, still the form and place were never actually agreed upon. it is clear from section 10 of the oaths act that the agreement as to the oath must be such that the court is in a position to administer it forthwith. if, however, the form and place have not been settled, the court cannot administer it ayakannu nadar v. muthia nadar (1906) 17 m.l.j. 99 is distinguished on the ground that there the form of the oath had been agreed upon.2. the petition is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Munro, J.

1. I doubt if any question of jurisdiction arises in this case, but, assuming such a question arises, I think the Sub-Judge is right on the question regarding the oath. Though the plaintiff agreed generally to abide by the oath of the defendants and the defendants agreed to take an oath in any form or in any place, still the form and place were never actually agreed upon. It is clear from Section 10 of the Oaths Act that the agreement as to the oath must be such that the court is in a position to administer it forthwith. If, however, the form and place have not been settled, the court cannot administer it Ayakannu Nadar v. Muthia Nadar (1906) 17 M.L.J. 99 is distinguished on the ground that there the form of the oath had been agreed upon.

2. The petition is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Manji and ors. vs Paramayya Hebbara Same Subject Civil

Civil