RATHNATHANNI Vs. SOMASUNDARA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is admitted that the defendant paid Rs. 200 to the plaintiff before the marriage. It is clear from the evidence and from the pleadings that the payment of Rs. 200 for the expenses of the marriage was a term of the contrast of marriage. That being so, it follows that the payment was made for the benefit of the plaintiff. In the absence of the payment, she would have had to find the amount in some other way by borrowing or pledging her jewels or other properties. The cases relied on by the Vakil for the respondent, viz. Hira V/s. Hansji Pema 17 Ind. Cas. 949 : 37 B. 295 : 14 Bom. L.R. 1182; Jaikisondas Gopaldas V/s. Harkisondas Hullochandas 2 B. 9 : 2 Ind. Jur. 19 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 434; Authikesavulu Chetty v. Ramanujam Chetty 3 Ind. Cas. 541 : 32 M. 512 at p. 516 : 19 M.L.J. 656 : 6 M.L.T. 183; Gabrielnathaswami V/s. Valliammal Ammal 53 Ind. Cas. 423 : 10 L.W. 491 : 26 M.L.T. 348 : (1920) M.W.N. 158 have no bearing on this case. In Hira V/s. Hansji Pema 17 Ind. Cas. 949 : 37 B. 295 : 14 Bom. L.R. 1182 the payment was for the benefit of the third husband. In Jaikisondas Gopaldas V/s. Harkisondas Hullochandas 2 B. 9 : 2 Ind. Jur. 19 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 434 it was for the benefit of the bride. In Authikesavavulu Chetty V/s. Ramanujam Chetty 3 Ind. Cas. 541 : 32 M. 512 at p. 516 : 19 M.L.J. 656 : 6 M.L.T. 183 the payment was not of a prise but a small customary present. In Gabrielnathaswami V/s. Valiammal Ammal 53 Ind. Cas. 423 : 10 L.W. 491 : 26 M.L.T. 348 : (1920) M.W.N. 158 an enquiry was directed into the meaning of the word "Parisam." I think the case in Muthu Aiyar V/s. Chidambaram Aiyar 3 M.L.J. 261 applies to this case and I see no reason to differ from it. As pointed out by Steele, it is the essence of a Brahma form of marriage that the parents should incur the expense of the marriage (page 24) and so far as I am aware, the general usage is in accordance with this statement. No special custom among Mudaliars to the effect that the bridegroom should incur the expenses of the marriage has been pleaded. On the other hand, the statement of M. Leon Sorg quoted in Mayne, page 100, shows that the Asura form is common among the Tamil population, meaning probably the Sudras. I, therefore, find, following Muthu Aiyar V/s. Chidambaram Aiyar 3 M.L.J. 261, that the marriage is in an unapproved form.

(2.) The result is that the second appeal will be allowed and the plaintiff will be given a decree for the properties in A Schedule and Item No. 1 of B Schedule, which are admitted to be the properties of the deceased and as to which only the appeal is pressed, or for their value Rs. 445-8-0. Plaintiff will have proportionate costs in the first Court and all costs here and in the lower Appellate Court. Spencer, J.

(3.) I agree.