Point of Law: Burden to prove the marriage was on the plaintiff alone particularly when the plaintiff denied the marriage with the defendant. In the counter suit also, the plaintiff who was the defendant therein denied the marriage. In the absence of customary ceremonies, the defendant has no legal right to claim a valid marriage between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2002 in A.S.No.106/1992 of the Additional District Court-II, Mavelikara (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court') arising from the common judgment and decree dated 10.1.1992 in O.S.No.10/1990 of the Munsiff's Court, Haripad (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court').

2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, filed O.S.No.10/1990 before the trial court. The defendant is the respondent. The parties are hereinafter referred to as referred in O.S.No.10/1990 unless otherwise stated.

3. The plaint allegations in brief are as under:-

The plaintiff is a member of Hindu Ezhava community and he is conducting a studio at Nangiarkulangara under the name and style 'Prasad Studio'. He is also a final year student of T.K.M. Engineering College at Kollam. The defendant is a member of the Hindu Ullada community and she was a total stranger to the plaintiff till February, 1989. During the month of February 1989, the defendant had come to the plaintiff's studio for taking photographs. When they got acquainted with each other, on 13.12.1989, the defendant came to the lodge wherein the plaintiff was residing and asked him to accompany her up to Varkala for collecting some books for her departmental test. On that day, they stayed together at Ananda Tourist Home, Varkala. While they were staying at the Ananda Lodge, 12 persons including the defendant's brother came to the room with a garland and a 'thali' and compelled the plaintiff to marry the defendant. Because of their threat, the plaintiff was compelled to tie the 'thali' around her neck and thereafter garlanded her. One of them took the photographs of the function. The next day, the plaintiff and the defendant were taken to the Sub Registry Office at Navaikulam and a marriage agreement was registered out of coercion and fraud. It is a void document. The plaintiff did not intend to marry the defendant. There was no marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The marriage agreement is void. After the registration of the agreement, the plaintiff was under the custody of her relatives till 15.12.1989 after which the plaintiff managed to escape from their illegal custody in the night of 15.12.1989. On 19.12.1989, an attempt was made to take the plaintiff and the defendant to the Panchayat Office, Cheppad for registration of the marriage. The above action was opposed by the plaintiff. However, the next day, they managed to take both the plaintiff and the defendant to the Panchayat Office, Navaikulam and succeeded in their attempt to get the marriage registered.

Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the agreement dated 14.12.1989 of the SRO, Navaikulam is void and for other reliefs.

4. The defendant filed a written statement contending that they were in love for the last two years and their marriage was solemnized at the residence of the relative at Navaikulam on 10.12.1989 according to the customary rites and ceremonies. The plaintiff's relatives were against the marriage. The suit was filed at the instance of the plaintiff's relatives. She denied the allegation that she was instrumental in taking him to Ananda Tourist Home at Varkala on 13.12.1989. She affirmed that the marriage agreement on 14.12.1989 was with the consent of the parties out of their own free will.

5. The defendant filed O.S.No.157/1990 against the plaintiff restraining him from conducting any other marriage during the subsistence of the valid marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant till the disposal of O.S.No.10/1990. The plaintiff filed written statement contending that the marriage agreement between the parties is null and void and the defendant is not the wife of the plaintiff.

6. Both suits (O.S.Nos.10/1990 & 157/1990) were tried together by the trial court. Treating O.S.No.10/1990 as the leading case the entire evidence was adduced.

7. During the trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and