GOPI KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. JANAK PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Letters Patent by the pltf. from a decision of Shearer, J. reversing the decision of the Cts. below in a suit for recovery of money which the applt. had paid to resps. 1 & 2 in the following circumstances. The applt. had entered into an agreement with resps. 1 & 2 by which the latter had agreed that the former's daughter, who was then a minor, would be married to reap. 3, who was then the minor son of resp. l. Resp. 2 was the adult son of resp. 1 & brother of resp. 3. The agreement was that the applt. would pay a sum of Rs. 1001 & would also give silver & brass utensils to the value of Rs. 152. The tilak ceremony was performed at Aurangabad, where the resps. resided, & the money was paid partly before & partly at that time. Soon after the performance of the ceremony, resp. 3 had some sort of a fit, which led the applt. to make an enquiry with the result that it was found that the bridegroom was an epileptic subject. The applt. then broke off the marriage & demanded back the sum of Rs. 1152 which he had paid to resps. 1 & 2. The Cts. below held that the applt. was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 909-6-9, excluding the amount which had been spent on the tilak ceremony. The final Ct. of fact modified the decree of the learned Munsif by directing that the decree would be against resps. 1 & 2 alone & not against resp. 3. Resps. l & 2 appealed to this Ct., & Shearer, J. allowed the appeal, holding that the agreement between the applt. & the major resps. was an agreement only, a mere nudum pactum, & not a contract, & further, holding that if the tilak was a conditional gift, then the applt. was not entitled to recovery of the money inasmuch as the marriage did not take place on account of his own default.

(2.) The questions which have been urged before us were considered by a Bench of this Ct. in a very recent decision which has not yet been reported: Dharnidhar v. Kanhji Sahay, S. A. No. 1409 of 1946 : A.I.R. (36) 1949 Pat. 250). In my opinion, that decision covers the present case & relieves us of the duty of a fresh examination of the case law on the subject. Two questions arose for decision in that case: firstly, whether an agreement to make a payment to a father in consideration of the marriage of his son or daughter is illegal & against public policy, & therefore, hit by Section 23, Contract Act, & secondly, whether the money paid under such an agreement can be recovered after the contract had been resiled from by the pltf. himself. Manohar Lall J. referred to the decisions in Bakshi Das v. Nadu Das, 1 C. L. J. 261; Kristnayya v. Lakshmi Narayana, 32 Mad. 185 : (3 I. C. 554); Ramsumaran Prasad v. Gobinda Das, 5 Pat. 646 : (A. I. R. (13) 1926 Pat. 582) & a large number of other decisions on the subject, & held that in the case before him it had not been proved that the contract was immoral or illegal. Ramaswami J. the other member of the Bench, was inclined to hold that the contract was opposed to public policy, & therefore, void. Both the Judges, however, answered the second question in the affirmative. Manohar Lall J. expressed himself as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the resps. has also contended before us that there has been a part performance of the contract, & in view of such part performance the money cannot be returned. He has relied on Kearley v. Thomson, (1890) 24 Q.B.D. 742 : (59 L. J. Q. B. 288). I am unable to appreciate this argument. The money was paid for the marriage & no marriage has been performed. It is beyond any dispute that the performance of the tilak ceremony is no part of the performance of a marriage. The claim of the applt. cannot, in my opinion, be resisted on the principle of part performance.