DHARNIDHAR Vs. KANHJI SAHAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts found are that the plaintiff-appellant concluded negotiations for the marriage of his daughter with the son of the respondent on the promise that the plaintiff would send Rs. 2449 to the defendant apparently for the purchase of ornaments for the bride, that the sagun and tilak would be performed on 4 May 1942 and the marriage would be solemnised on 10 May and the plaintiff would also pay a sum of Rs. 250 for purchasing some articles for the bridegroom. In accordance with this agreement, the plaintiff sent Rs. 2250 to the defendant by a cheque on the Imperial Bank, Gaya, and it was duly cashed by the, defendant. Two days later, however, on 24 April, the plaintiff sent a wire to the defendant cancelling the arrangements and intimating that the marriage will not take place now. The plaintiff requested the defendant to refund, but the defendant refused to pay back the money received by him. The plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal on 19 December 1944 asking for a refund of the amount which he had Bent to the defendant. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that the plaintiff was not justified in cancelling the contract and that the defendant himself was always willing to perform his part of the promise. It was also asserted that the plaintiff had caused disgrace, social opprobrium and mental worry to the defendant and his family and, therefore, was not entitled to recover the amount. It was further pleaded that in accordance with the request of the plaintiff the defendant had already made over Rs. 250 to his son, the bridegroom. The defendant also pleaded that he had utilised the balance of the amount received to meet the expenses in connection with the intended marriage, but the findings of fact of both the Courts are against this plea. It must, therefore, be taken that the facts amount to this that the plaintiff, the father of the girl, paid Rs. 2250 to the defendant in order that ho may consent to the marriage of his son with the plaintiff's daughter. It should also be stated that the plaintiff gave no reasons whatsoever either in the plaint or in his evidence as to why he had cancelled the contemplated marriage of his daughter with the defendant's son beyond stating that he does not feel disposed to disclose the reasons for the cancellation.

(2.) The Courts below have, dismissed the suit upon the ground that the plaintiff should not have resiled from the contract. Hence the appeal to this Court.

(3.) Two questions emerge for decision; firstly whether the agreement was illegal and against public policy and therefore hit by Section 23, Contract Act, and secondly whether the money paid under this agreement can be recovered after the contract had been resiled from by the plaintiff himself.