ABU MOHAMMED Vs. MOHAMMED KUNJU LEBBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A marriage proposal burgeoned and progressed to much leaps. But before it bloomed into wedding it fizzled out and the girl was later given in marriage to another person. However, in the meantime there were some monetary transactions between the parties. The girl's father sued the betrothed person and his parents for return of the money advanced. As the Trial Court decreed the suit, this appeal has been filed by the defendants.

(2.) Plaint claim was founded on the following facts: Plaintiff's daughter Rejula Beevi was proposed for marriage with Mohammed Najeeb (third defendant). During negotiations, a suggestion came from Najeeb's parents that since their residential house required sprucing up to make it befitting to the bridal home of the couple some money was required. It was favourably reciprocated and plaintiff paid a total amount of Rs.1,02,920/- to the defendants on different occasions either through cheques or cash. The house was refurbished but the proposed wedding did not take place. Defendants now blame the plaintiff for unilaterally resiling from the proposal, while plaintiff did not blame anybody for it but conceded that the proposal fell out and Rajula Beevi was given in marriage to some body else. However, according to the plaintiff, the amounts were advanced by" way of loan and hence he filed the suit for a decree.

(3.) Defendants in a joint written statement adopted alternative contentions, chief among them are that there was only a payment of Rs. 30,000/- by the plaintiff and nothing more and even that amount was not given as a loan but as a gift since plaintiff too was desirous of having the bridal home spruced up. There was neither any agreement to repay nor any legal liability to return the money.