Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Chellathammal Vs. Ammayappa Mudaliar

Chellathammal vs Ammayappa Mudaliar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 03, 1908
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/786926

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Lnnacy Act (XXXV of 1858) - Court's power of control over the acts of lunatic's guardian--Permission of Court for the marriage of the lunatics. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chellathammal

Respondent

Ammayappa Mudaliar

Legal References

Cases Referred
Shridar v. Hiralal Vithal
Reported In
3Ind.Cas.388

Excerpt

lnnacy act (xxxv of 1858) - court's power of control over the acts of lunatic's guardian--permission of court for the marriage of the lunatics. - .....power of interference might be in effectual in some cases in which its exercise is most desirable.3. in in the matter of basharat ali chowdhry 24 c.133, it is held to be unquestionable that the guardian is in complete subordination to the court which appointed and can remove him and the power to control so important a matter as marriage is a power which ought not lightly to be denied to the court.4. it will not, no doubt, as a rule, interfere with the choice made by the guardian and the family in the matter of marriage, but that is not a reason why it should not have the power to do so if need be.5. in the case of minors the court has required [re: gulbai and lilbai 32 b. 50 : 9 bom.l.r. 923,] as consent to be obtained to a marriage see also shridar v. hiralal vithal 12 b. 480 and the considerations which apply to a minor are, speaking generally, applicable also to a lunatic.6. we agree with these decisions and we have no doubt that the district judge had jurisdiction to make the order requiring the guardian to obtain his premission before marrying the lunatic. '7. the question whether the hindu law allows a male lunatic to contract a valid marriage is not one which we are called on to decide.8. we dismiss the appeal with costs.

Full Judgment

1. It is beyond question that the order of the District Judge is a proper order in so far as it requires the guardian to obtain his permission before celebrating the marriage of his lunatic son, provided that he had jurisdiction to make it.

2. There is no provision in the Act under which the guardian is appointed declaring what are the powers of the Court after appointment, but it was conceded by Mr. Sataya Nadar that we are not on that account to deny to the Court all powers of control over the guardian. He was prepared to admit that if the guardian contemplated an improper marriage of the lunatic, the Court could interfere if the proposal was brought to its notice. If that is conceded there is no ground that we can see for holding that the Court is not empowered to require the guardian to obtain its permission before arranging a marriage; otherwise the power of interference might be in effectual in some cases in which its exercise is most desirable.

3. In In the matter of Basharat Ali Chowdhry 24 C.133, it is held to be unquestionable that the guardian is in complete subordination to the Court which appointed and can remove him and the power to control so important a matter as marriage is a power which ought not lightly to be denied to the Court.

4. It will not, no doubt, as a rule, interfere with the choice made by the guardian and the family in the matter of marriage, but that is not a reason why it should not have the power to do so if need be.

5. In the case of minors the Court has required [Re: Gulbai and Lilbai 32 B. 50 : 9 Bom.L.R. 923,] as consent to be obtained to a marriage see also Shridar v. Hiralal Vithal 12 B. 480 and the considerations which apply to a minor are, speaking generally, applicable also to a lunatic.

6. We agree with these decisions and we have no doubt that the District Judge had jurisdiction to make the order requiring the guardian to obtain his premission before marrying the lunatic. '

7. The question whether the Hindu Law allows a male lunatic to contract a valid marriage is not one which we are called on to decide.

8. We dismiss the appeal with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial