RAMJI MOTICHAND Vs. NARANJI PURSHOTTAM SANGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is a member of the Dasa Sorathia Bania caste in Bombay. He prays in this suit for a declaration that his excommunication from the caste is void. His main contentions are that the proceedings which resulted in his excommunication were contrary to natural justice in that the procedure laid down by the rules of the caste was not followed, that he committed no caste offence, that he received no notice of the charge or of the punishment proposed to be inflicted, that he received no notice of the caste meeting, that no notice was given to the members of the caste that a charge against the plaintiff which might result in his excommunication was to be dealt with at the meeting, and that there was no evidence before the caste upon which the caste could find him guilty.

(2.) In order that the case may be understood, it will here be convenient to refer to some of the more material facts. One Sha. Bhurabhai Nathoo died several years ago leaving two sons Amratlal and Amichand, and five daughters, the eldest of whom is the wife of the plaintiff, and the youngest of whom is named Shanta. The said Shanta was on March 2, 1930, betrothed to Vanmali Kurji. As no marriage resulted from that betrothal, Vanmali's brother Lakhmichand Kurji on November 23, 1930, addressed a letter which with several other documents hereafter referred to was put in as exhibit A collectively, to Sheth Vrajlal Bechardas, defendant No. 2, as manager of the caste in Bombay. Defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3, who is now dead, were at that time joint managers of the caste in Bombay. In the letter, Lakhmichand complained that although the marriage was fixed for the previous month of Vaishakh, it was put off on one pretext or another, that he was referred by Shanta's brothers Amratlal and Amichand and by her mother to the plaintiff, and that, on asking him about the date of the marriage, an evasive reply was given, and the plaintiff began to act impudently and to talk in an insulting manner, and Lakhmichand requested the manager to call a caste meeting and give him proper justice. It will thus be seen that as early as November, 1930, Lakhmichand asserted that Shanta's mother referred him to her son-in-law, the plaintiff, and that when marriage was suggested, the plaintiff evaded the matter.

(3.) After this it appears that attempts were made to arrange the matter amicably. As these failed, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as managers of the caste addressed a letter dated March 24, 1931, to Shanta's father (who was already dead) and her brothers Amratlal and Amichand, referring to Lakhmichand's letter of November 23, 1930, and informing them that as long as the meeting of the community was not called, they were not to make any movement in connection with the matter, and that if they did so, they would be liable to the community.