THOMAS Vs. SARAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. THE plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the appellant. THE suit was for recovery of the dowry amount of Rs. 3,591/-with interest, paid to the appellant on 13-2-1968 in connection with the marriage of the respondent-plaintiff with the son of the appellant. THE marriage took place on 5. 11. 1967. THE suit was instituted without any earlier demand by the issuance of a notice. THE defendant deposited the whole dowry amount in Court on getting summons from Court and pleaded that he was not liable for costs and interest. This case was repelled by the trial Court and the trial Court decreed the suit making the defendant-appellant liable to pay interest and costs amounting to rs. 400/ -. In appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court since the appellant and counsel were absent.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant contended that he had paid the amount immediately on receipt of summons from Court and that if he had received a notice from the plaintiff before the institution of the suit, he would have readily paid the amount. In fact, he did not seriously contest his liability to pay the amount. However, the appellant raised a new plea that the suit itself is not maintainable since the amount involved in the suit is covered by the expression 'dowry' as defined in the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961, Act 28 of 1961 for short the Act.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant incidentally raised an alternative argument based on S. 6 (1) (b) of the Act, which reads thus: "6. (1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in question with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman, (b) i f the dowry was received at the time of after the marriage, within one year after the date of its receipt" According to the appellant, the marriage took place on 5111967 and the suit was filed on 27th August, 196 8 , that is, before the expiry of one year mentioned in the above sub-section. I do not think it necessary to consider this question since I have already held that the appellant is entitled to succeed in this second appeal as the suit for recovery of the amount is bad in law.