NAVAKOTI DANIEL Vs. INGILALA MARIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of damages for breach of promise to marry or in the alternative for seduction of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a Christian, is the girl seduced, who complains also of the breach of promise, and she sues through her next friend and mother. The trial Court (the District Munsifs Court, Nellore) found that there was the tort of seduction as well as a breach of promise and awarded damages in a sum of Rs. 500 as against the Rs. 1000 claimed in the plaint. On appeal taken by the defendant to the District Judge--of Nellore that decree has been confirmed not however on the ground of seduction but on the ground of a breach of promise to marry. In second appeal the case has been presented alike with reference to breach off promise and with reference to seduction. It may be stated that the plaintiff has since the presentation of the second appeal become a major and has been declared as such. In view of the importance of the questions raised I requested Mr. Y. G. Krishnamurti to act as amicus curiae for the plaintiff-respondent who does not appear here by pleader. I am indebted to him for the assistance rendered by him.

(2.) The argument in regard to the seduction aspect of the case is that seduction is a tort on the basis of which an action can be brought only by the plaintiff's father or mother on the ground of loss of personal service. As to this what the lower appellate Court has said is this:

(3.) The English rule as to the maintainability of a suit for damages for seduction is stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. XXII at pp. 247 and 248 in paras. 428, 429 and 430 as follows :