AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Walsh, J.—In this case the plaintiff, the brother in law of the defendant, claimed that he worked in the press of the latter for about 10 months
on contract at Rs. 10 a month for wages. The contract was denied, and the Court found that it was not proved. However his claim was decreed at
Rs. 5 a month, in addition to the boarding which he admittedly had from the defendant.
It is contended in revision that no alternative relief on the footing of quantum meruit having been asked for, the lower Court had no jurisdiction to
grant any. I agree with that contention. Krishna Prosad Sinha v. Purnendu Narain Sinha (1912) 11 IC 820, is a much stronger case, because the
service there was admitted. It was held that the plea of quantum meruit not having been raised, it could not be granted: see also Roopji and Sons
Vs. Dyer Meaken and Co., Ltd., . The plaintiff''s own evidence shows that he entered on the work knowing nothing about it and learned it under a
man employed by the defendant. He was getting board, and I can find in the circumstances no evidence at all from which it could be inferred with
any certainty to what, if any, wages the plaintiff would be entitled. But it is unnecessary to go further into the facts of the case. The civil revision
petition is allowed and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout.