GULABCHAND PARAMCHAND Vs. FULBAI HARICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an agreement between the parties to this suit the plaintiff promised to pay the sum of Rs. 1,800 to the first defendant as consideration for the first defendant's promise to marry his niece to plaintiff's son. But before the marriage could take place the plaintiff's son died of plague. Under the agreement, however, the plaintiff had, before her son's death, paid to the first defendant a sum which the lower Courts have ascertained to be Rs. 750. The question is whether, having regard to the character of the agreement between the parties, the plaintiff is entitled to recover this sum from the first defendant. Both the Courts below have decreed the claim, and the first defendant now appeals from that decree.

(2.) The only ground upon which the decree is attacked has reference to the character of the agreement between the parties. It is contended that that agreement, being an agreement by way of marriage-brokerage, is void as opposed to public policy and, therefore, under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, no sum paid under it can be recovered.

(3.) In Dholidas Ishvar V/s. Fulchand Chhagan 22 B. 658 it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that such an agreement as that now in question is void as opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act; and this decision is binding upon us. That being so, it is urged by the Honourable Mr. Khare that the only principle of law on which in India money paid under a void agreement can be recovered is contained in Section 65 of the Contract Act; and that the language of this section shuts out such a claim as this.