Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.OBUL REDDY
Rayudu Pallamsetti - Appellant
Versus
Dommeti Sriramulu - Respondent
Decided On : 04-27-67
CONTRACT - ILLEGAL CONTRACT - RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID - MARRIAGE BROKERAGE CONTRACT - VOID - MONEY PAID CAN BE RECOVERED IF NO SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE AGREEMENT PERFORMED - SECTION 23, CONTRACT ACT - SECTION 5 (3), HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff gave presents and money to defendants in connection with the proposed marriage of their minor children. The marriage did not take place and the plaintiff sued to recover the value of the presents and money. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the contract was void under Section 23 of the Contract Act and Section 5 (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for the full amount claimed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the contract was void, but that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the money paid as the contract had not been performed and the parties had reverted to their original positions. The court also held that the amount determined by the lower appellate court as the amount recoverable was based on the evidence adduced by the parties.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the money paid pursuant to an illegal contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the money paid as the contract had not been performed and the parties had reverted to their original positions. The court also held that the amount determined by the lower appellate court as the amount recoverable was based on the evidence adduced by the parties.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE suit out of which this second appeal arises was laid by the respondent (plaintiff) for recovery of Rs. 3,000 as being the price of gold ornaments given to the defendants in connection with the con-tract of marriage between the minor son of the plaintiff and the minor daughter of defendants 1 and 2.
( 2 ) IN about the last week of May 1957, the 2nd defendant, the wife of the 1st defendant, as her husband (1st defendant) was away in Rangoon came to the house of the plaintiff to negotiate the marriage of her daughter with the plaintiffs son. The parties arrived at an agreement and decided that the marriage of the plaintiffs son should take place with the daughter of the defendants (appellants) and exchanged courtesies. Pursuant to the understanding arrived at, the plaintiff presented a gold chain costing Rs. 2,100, silk saree and other clothes and also a sum of Rs. 200 to meet some other incidental expenses. The total value of the presents and other items given to the defendant came to Rs 2,955. The 1st defendant returned from Rangoon on 20th August 1957 and even before that he had ratified the action of his wife and the plaintiff in settling the marriage of his daughter Subsequently, the marriage could not come off for a variety of reasons, and the plaintiff, therefore, laid action for recovery of the gold chain and other items presented to the daughter of the defendants, or the value thereof.
( 3 ) THE defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the allegations relating to dowry and the presents are not, true According to them, only one gold chain of six sovereigns of the value of Rs. 500 was given. The statement of the plaintiff regarding the dowry to be paid to the bridegroom by the defendants side was admitted. The main defence is that the plaintiff brought the suit in violation of the settlement arrived at between the parties, and that he is not entitled to recover the value of the jewellery or the money, or claim damage for the reason that the contemplated marriage would be void under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.
( 4 ) THE Court of first instance framed several issues and found on the main issues that the defendants committed default in the performance of the marriage between the parties, and that the marriage agreement is itself hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, read with Section 5 (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act and dismissed the suit.
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the decree and judgment of the trial Court the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada while concurring with the findings of the trial Court in all other respects, except us to the maintainability of the suit and also the quantum of money payable to the plaintiff, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 2,955 with interest thereon at 51/2 per cent, per annum from the date of the suit.
( 6 ) MR. Chalapati Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the lower appellate Court tailed to see that the presents and moneys advanced were in Furtherance of an illegal contract entered into by the parties in violation of the statutory provisions and any payments made pursuant to a contract prohibited by law or opposed to public policy, is tainted with illegality and hence not recoverable. A grievance is also made by him that while the trial Court fixed the amount due at Rs. 1,250 the lower appellate Court enhanced the amount and fixed it at Rs. 2,955 without any basis whatsoever.
( 7 ) THEREFORE, the main question that arises for con liberation, is, despite the fact that the contract between the parties to celebrate the marriage of two minors, which is indisputedly opposed to public policy and hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 5 (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, whether the plaintiff can recover the amount paid pursuant to such a contract, It is argued by Mr. Chalapathi Rao that by reason of the fact that the transaction it an illegal one, t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
