ARUNACHALA MOOPANAR Vs. VALLI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal raises questions under the Indian Oaths Act. The plaintiff who is the appellant agreed to accept the oath of the first defendant as conclusive of the matter in issue and the agreement was that the parties should appear before a certain temple, that the- plaintiff should light camphor and the defendant should extinguish it while taking the required oath. The agreement did not stipulate the time or the date of the oath, which were left to be fixed by the Court. The Court, accordingly, issued a warrant to a commissioner appointing him to take the oath from the first defendant in the presence of the plaintiff between the hours 8 and 11 A.M. on the 17 March, 1933. The parties and the commissioner duly appeared at the temple as required, but the commissioner's report shows that just as the first defendant was about to take the oath the partisans of both sides told the plaintiff and the first defendant that they should abide by the decision of panchayatdars and accordingly a panchayat went on, but the parties did not agree to act according to what the panchayatdars said; and then both the plaintiff and the first defendant said that the time mentioned in the warrant had elapsed and they went away without any oath being taken. It thus appears that the warrant was not executed owing to circumstances for which neither, party can be blamed more than the other.

(2.) When the warrant was returned to the Court the plaintiff tried to make capital out of these circumstances by alleging that the first defendant had failed to take the oath and contending that her defence should therefore be struck off. The trial Court, quite rightly, refused to accept this contention, and required the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 6 for the expenses of a fresh commission to take the oath, the first defendant professing herself still ready to take the oath. The plaintiff refused to deposit the money and his suit was dismissed, no opportunity being given to him to adduce evidence on the merits. In the lower appellate Court the first defendant not only professed willingness to take the oath but also offered to bear the expenses, an offer which apparently was not made in the trial Court. The plaintiff contended that the agreement to take the oath was at an end and that the Court had no jurisdiction to force him into a fresh agreement or to make him pay the expenses of the proceedings. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the plaintiff comes up in Second Appeal.

(3.) Three arguments have been advanced here. They are : (i) that the Court had no jurisdiction to force the plaintiff into a second agreement to be bound by the first defendant's oath; (ii) that the reference to the panchayat superseded the oath agreement; and (iii) that even if the plaintiff's position be put at its worst and he be taken to have resiled from the oath agreement, the Court had no jurisdiction to shut out his evidence and dismiss his suit.