YELAMANCHILI BAPAYYA Vs. YELAMANCHILI RUKHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ground on which the District Judge reversed the decree of the District Munsif is not a ground which was taken by the defendant before the District Munsif. The general rule is that marriage expenses are to be borne by the family property just in the same way as the cost of maintenance Vaikuntam Ammarigar V/s. Kallapiram Ayyangar 33 M. 512 at p. 515 and we have been referred to no authority that this rule does not apply to the class to which the parties belong.

(2.) It only remains to fix the amount to which the plaintiffs are entitled. It is not shown that Rs. 250 is too much for marriage expenses. Even the defendant's 4th witness concedes that Rs. 400 is not too much to allow for katnam, and we decree that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the actual katnam paid, subject to a maximum of Rs. 500 which is the figure allowed by the District Munsif and which no reason has been shown for reducing. As to serai the amount depends upon the pleasure of the given, and we think it is sufficient to allow Rs. 50 under this head. The decree of the District Judge is set aside and the decree of the District Munsif restored subject to the above modification.

(3.) The appellants will have their costs throughout.