A custom that is ancient, reasonable, continuous, certain, uniform, obligatory, not immoral or opposed to public policy, and does not derogate from any statutes or public policy, can override any text of Smriti law and is enforceable.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate judge, Bapatla in O. S. No. 145 of 1952.

( 2 ) THE facts which have given rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The plaintiff had 9 daughter by name Damayanti. She was married to the defendant on /-4-1939. She died intestate and issueless on 28-8-1952. On 4-12-1952, the plaintiff instituted the above suit for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs. 51,506-9-7. According to the case pleaded in the plaint, the plaintiff gave a cash katnam of Rs. 25,000. 00 to the defendant at the time of the marriage and announced a gift of 10 acres of land in Penumudi village as Pasupukunkuma to the bride; that subsequent to the marriage the defendant represented to him that he would prefer to purchase a land in his village and that in the years 1940 and 1941, he paid him two sums of Rs. 5,000. 00 and Rs. 6,000. 00 towards the value of the said land; that he also gave his daughter the jewels shown in Schedules A and A-1 and certain other presents in kind, such as silverware, brassware, and furniture mentioned in Schedules B and B-1; and that the several sums and the movables together with the accretions thereto are in the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff sought recovery of these various sums on the basis of a caste custom prevalent in the Kamma community in the Andhra area, and more particularly in the Districts of Krishna and Guntur.

( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. He denied the existence of the custom pleaded by the plaintiff. According to him, only a sum of Rs. 20000. 00 was paid to him towards katnam, Rs. 18,000. 00 at the time of the marriage and Rs. 2,000. 00 subsequently. He denied the receipt of the balance of Rs. 5,000. 00 towards katnam as also the payment of Rs. 11,000. 00 towards the value of the land. He averred that Damavanti did not leave the jewels at his house. He admitted the existence of some of the items of movables but denied the existence of the rest.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings, the learned Subordinate fudge framed the following issues: "1. Whether the custom pleaded by plaintiff is true, valid and reasonable? 2. What is the amount of dowry presented by plaintiff to defendant and whether the same is returnable to plaintiff? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest on the same? 4. Whether plaintiff presented his daughter with any money in lieu of 10 acres of land?

( 5 ) WHETHER plaintiff is entitled to recover the same with interest?

( 6 ) WHAT are the jewels and other articles presented by plaintiff to defendant and his late wife?

( 7 ) WHETHER the radio set was returned to plaintiff as alleged by defendant?

( 8 ) WHETHER plaintiff is entitled to recover the movables and jewels of A. 1 and B. 1 schedules and what is their value?" 5. On a consideration of the voluminous evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Judge has found on issue 1 that the custom set UP by the plaintiff has been established; on issues 2 and 3 that Rs. 25,000. 00 was given as Katnam by the plaintiff to the defendant and that he was entitled to a return of the said amount together with interest; on issues 4 and 5 that the plaintiff paid Rs. 11,000. 00 to the defendant in lieu of 10 acres of land promised to be to given by him to his daughter towards Pasupukunkuma and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on the said amount from the date of the death of Damayanti. On issue 6, the trial, Judge held that the silverware, brassware and furniture worth Rs. 1,000. 00 was presented by the plaintiff to the defendant or his wife; that the plaintiff gave him a cow and calf and that A and A-1 schedule Jewels were also presented by the plaintiff to the defendants wife. Ho found on issue 7 that the radio set was returned by the defendant to the plaintiff; and on issue 8, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 900. 00 towards the value of the jewels and Rs. 1000. 00 towards the value of the other a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document