TAVVA VENKATA GURUNADHA RAO Vs. BADAM ROSAIAH DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicability of Sections 65 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act is involved in the 2nd appeal.

(2.) The facts contributing to this litigations may be briefly stated. The appellant before us took a wife in 1941. She deserted him for reasons which are not quite explicable and which need not be gone into in this appeal. So, he instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and also obtained a decree in that behalf. But she did not obey the decree and the plaintiff did not seek to execute it. Eight years thereafter, i.e., on 19-6-1949, he married again the third defendant, who was at that time about fourteen years old. The marriage was consummated and they lived as man and wife for some months. Later on, he filed a petition for the custody of his minor wife under the Guardians and Wards Act alleging that her parents took her away without his knowledge and consent. This petition was opposed inter alia on the ground that as the marriage of the plaintiff with the third defendant took place after the coming into force of the Madras Act VI of 1949, it was void and consequently the petition was not maintainable. This objection prevailed with the District Judge, Krishna, before whom the petition came up for hearing, with the result that the petition was dismissed.

(3.) The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted for recovery of jewels and a sum of Rs. 2,000 said to have been deposited with one of the defendants for purposes which need not be detailed here. The answer to the suit was that the jewels and the money were not recoverable for the reason that the plaintiff induced the first and second defendants to give their daughter, the 3rd defendant, in marriage to him on the false representation that he was a bachelor and had the marriage consummated. The courts below dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to get back either the jewels or the cash because knowing full well that the marriage was prohibited he entered into a contract of marriage with the third defendant and the plaintiff had no cause of action for the return of the jewels or the sarees or the sum of Rs, 2,000/- presented by him to the bride, the third defendant, and this is not a case where an agreement is discovered to be void or a contract becomes void, but is a case of a contract which is void as being contrary to and prohibited by statute. The aggrieved plaintiff has brought this second appeal.