CHUDAMMAL Vs. NADAMUNI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is first contended that on the facts found the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for declaration passed by the lower Court and reliance is placed on Singam Setti Sanjivi Kondaya V/s. Draupadi Bayawma 31 M. 153 : 18 M.L.J. 11 : 3 M.L.T. 251. This question was not raised in the lower Court, nor in the memo, of appeal to this Court. The lower Court has decided that the 1 defendant was not justified in borrowing Rs. 100 for the marriage expense of her daughter. The 1 defendant was in possession of her father's property. Her husband was unable on account of his poverty to perform his daughter's marriage and it has been held by the Allahabad High Court that in such circumstances the mother would be justified in having recourse to the properly that came to her from her father to effect the marriage vide Mangli Prosad V/s. Ishri Prasad 18 A. 476. IT has not been argued before us that this decision is wrong and we see no reason to take a different view. We, accordingly, modify the decree by directing in addition to the amount of Rs. 283 decreed an additional amount of Rs. 100 with interest at 9 percent, per annum from the date of the second mortgage to the date of the sale.

(2.) WITH this modification the appeal is dismissed with costs.