KAILASANATH MUDALIAR Vs. PARASAKTHI VADIVANNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by plaintiff No. 3--the husband and legal representative of plaintiff No. 1- -and relates only to a portion of the subject-matter of the suit. The plaint was presented only by two plaintiffs, the daughters of defendant No. 1 by his deceased first wife Santhanayaki. They claimed possession of the scheduled properties and other reliefs as the heirs of their deceased mother. Defendant No. 2 is defendant Nos. l's son by that wife. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of defendant No. 1 by his second wife. Plaintiff No. 1 died very soon after the institution of the suit; and after some contest as to who her legal representative was, plaintiff No. 3 was added as legal representative, by order of March 21, 1927, on I.A. No. 102 of 1927. The question decided by this order has been re-agitated before us, though not seriously and it has been argued that the husband is not the heir, because the marriage was in an unapproved form. This question of heirship may be briefly disposed of.

(2.) The evidence recorded in connection with I.A. No. 102 of 1927 shows that in accordance with the custom of the community relating to "parisam," a jewel was presented by the bridegroom's father and placed on the bride's neck at the time of the betrothal ceremony. The form or value of the jewel was not even the subject of a bargain but merely left to the pleasure of the bridegroom's father. This can in no sense be called "bride price." Prom Manu's texts as well as from the decided cases, it is clear that the distinctive feature of the Asura form of marriage is the giving of money or money's worth to the bride's father, for his benefit or as consideration for his giving the girl in marriage: Muthu V/s. Chidambara 3 M.L.J. 261, Audikesavulu Chetty V/s. Ramanujam Chetty 32 M. 512 : 3 Ind. Cas. 541 : 6 M.L.T. 183 : 19 M.L.J. 656 and Jaikisondas Gopaldas V/s. Harakisandas 2 B. 9. In Gabrielnathaswami v. Kalliammal Ammal 10 L.W. 491 : 53 Ind. Cas. 423 : A.I.R. 1920 Mad 884 : 26 M.L.T. 348 : (1920) M.W.N. 158, there was a finding by the lower Appellate Court, that the "parisam" in that case was in the nature of a "bride price." In Samu Asari V/s. Anachi Ammal 49 M.L.J. 551 : 91 Ind. Cas 561 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 37 : 22 L.W. 462, and in Second Appeal No. 236 of 1925, the money was held to have been paid for the father's benefit, though utilized by him to meet the expenses of the marriage, which he must have otherwise defrayed out of his own funds: see also Rathnathanni V/s. Somasundara Mudaliar 13 L.W. 582 : 62 Ind. Cas. 931 : A.I.R. 1921 Mad. As pointed out in Jaikisondas Gopaldas V/s. Harakisondas 2 B. 9 at p. 15 Page of 2 Bom.-- [Ed.], the texts clearly distinguish between payments to the father for his own benefit and payments to the bride, received by her kinsmen not for their own use. We, therefore, affirm the conclusion of the lower Court on this point.

(3.) The main question in the appeal is, whether, taking plaintiff No. 3 to be his wife's heir, he is entitled to any, and if so, to which of the properties claimed in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge has, in paras. 14, 42, 46, 49 and 55 of his judgment, recorded findings to the following effect, as to the title to the various items of properties specified in the plaint schedules, viz., that the properties in Schedule I to 1-d, had been purchased in Santhanayaki's name and belonged to her that there were cash deposits in her name to the extent of Rs. 30,000, that out of this sum, the properties in Schedule IIb, c and e, Items Nos. 1 to 3 in Schedule II, and Items Nos. 1 to 4, in Schedule II-d, were acquired, after her death, in the names, sometimes of the two plaintiffs, sometimes of the two plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 jointly and sometimes of defendant No. 2 alone, but that they all belonged in law to the two plaintiffs; and that the property in Schedule II-a and Items Nos. 7 to 18, Schedule II had been purchased out of the income accruing from Santhanayaki's estate subsequent to her death. He held that that all these three sets of properties constituted "Santhanayaki's estate," and as such devolved on plaintiff No. 2 as sole heir on plaintiff No. 1's death (para. 72). The appeal is confined to the third group of properties above described, i.e., those specified in Schedule II- a, and Items Nos. 7 to 18, Schedule II. As these are found to have been acquired out of income, accruing after Santhanayaki's death, it has been argued, on behalf of the appellant, that these properties did not form accretions to the main estate but belonged absolutely to the daughters in equal shares and on the death of one of them, her share devolved on plaintiff No. 3 as her heir.