A person cannot recover money paid under an illegal contract.

Ramratna Singh, J.

1. The only question to be decided in this second appeal is whether the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled to recover any sum of money from the defendants-appellants out of the amount that they paid as dowry in consideration of a contract for marriage.

2. The marriage of a daughter of one of the plaintiffs-respondents was settled with defendant No. 3, son of defendant No. 2. According to the contract, sagun phaldan took place on the 5th day of Chait 1360 Fasli and tilak ceremony was performed on the 15th day of Jeth 1360 Fasli when cash and utensils worth Rs. 251 had been delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants as tilak. The marriage was to take place on the 1st day oil Asarh 1360 Fasli, but the bridegrooms party did not go to the house of the plaintiffs for performing the marriage.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs-respondents filed a case under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the other party had cheated them of Rs. 251 which they had paid as tilak and Rs. 2000 which they had paid as value of the ornaments for the bride which the bridegrooms party was to bring. This case ended in an acquittal and then the plaintiffs instituted a suit out of which this appeal arises.

3. The defendants stated that the sum of Rs. 251 as tilak was really paid, but the payment of Rs. 2000 on account of ornaments was denied. It was also alleged by the defendants that no marriage party was taken to the house of the plaintiffs because a day before the day fixed for the marriage, the plaintiffs informed the defendants that the girl would not be married on account of the fact that the bridegroom was suffering from epilepsy. The defendants made a counter claim of Rs. 531/8/- on the ground that they had incurred expenditure to that extent on account of preparations made for taking the barat party for the marriage. The last plea taken by the defendants was that the plaintiffs, were not entitled to get any decree, because it was on account of their laches that the marriage had not taken place.

4. The trial court as well as the first appellate Court found that a sum of Rs. 2.251 was paid by the plaintiffs as tilak to the defendants. The courts below considered the relevant provisions of the Bihar Dowry Restraint Act, 1950 , and found that the contract for the tilak wag illegal. But, in as much as the marriage had not been performed, a decree in favour of the plaintiffs was passed for Rs. 225.1 minus PS. 180/8/- on account of the expenditure incurred by the defendants. This decree was confirmed by the first appellate court. Hence, this second appeal.

5. Mr. P.R. Das, counsel for the appellants, relied on Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the said Act and contended that, inasmuch as the contract for tilak was prohibited by law, the plaintiffs-respondents could not recover any sum on the strength of this illegal contract. According to the definition in sec. 2

" dowry means anything paid or delivered as consideration of a contract of any betrothal or marriage and includes (i) tilak including chhenka where the amount paid in cash or kind or both exceeds, two hundred and fifty-One rupees; or

(ii) dahez including dwarpuja, milan or zadrah where the amount paid in cash or kind Or both exceeds two hundred and fifty-one rupees; but does not conclude (sic). (a) Kanyanirakshan or mathjhaks,

(b) Strikhan or any other religious obligations enjoined by the Hindu law or personal law applicable to the, parties;

(c) voluntary marriage gifts, such as ornaments to a bride and dresses to a bridegroom made at any time after the solemnisation of marriage."

Sections 3 and 4 of the Act read thus:

"3. Any person who takes dowry shall, on conviction, be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to the amount or value of the dowry taken or with both.

(4) Any person who gives dowry or abets the taking or giving of dowry shall, on conviction, be punishable with simple imprisonment which may e