(1.) The plaintiff sues to recover her prompt dower on the allegation that she is the lawfully wedded wife of the defendant and that the dower was fixed at the time of the marriage. The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff was duly married to the defendant at the house of the plaintiff's mother in Noapara on the 26th December 1948. and that the dower claimed was fixed at the time of the marriage. The finding also is that the defendant cohabited with the plaintiff as man and wife and that as a result the plaintiff conceived and gave birth to a child.
(2.) The finding is a finding of fact and is amply supported by the evidence on the record. There is a direct evidence of marriage given by the plaintiff and the eye-witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. Their evidence as to marriage is corroborated in material particulars.
(3.) Both the plaintiff and the defendant were eager to marry each other. They freely intermixed, with each other and used to go to cinemas alone, The defendant admitted that he gave hope of marriage stating that he would obtain the consent of his father. This admission is contrary to the case made in the written statement that the offer of marriage had been firmly refused.