Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.- This is an appeal by one Kumari Alagammai the plaintiff in O.S. No. 57 of 1951, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, dismissing her suit with costs. That was a suit filed by her against her four paternal uncles, defendants 1 to 4, for giving her Rs. 40,000 for her marriage expenses, out of the joint family properties, said to be worth ten lakhs, divided by them among themselves under two partition deeds, Exhibit A-8, dated 6th May, 1942, and Exhibit A-9, dated 26th May, 1942, making only a provision of Rs. 25,000 tor her marriage expenses and dividing it among themselves at Rs. 6,250, each to be paid individually at a later date. The plaintiff alleged that this provision of Rs. 25,000 for her marriage expenses in Exhibits A-8 and A-9 was not at all adequate and was in fraud of her rights to get Rs. 40,000 from them jointly at once. She did not, therefore, file a suit for recovering the Rs. 25,000, or for getting that sum deposited into Court for meeting her marriage expenses, taking advantage of the Privy Council ruling in Mst. Dan Kuer v. Sarla Devi1, on the basis of her being a third party beneficiary under those family arrangements, but filed this suit for recovering Rs. 40 000, at once from them, ignoring those partitions and family arrangements as not binding on her. She was admittedly a daughter of Chidambara, the brother of defendants 1 to 4. She was aged 19 when she brought this suit, and is now 23 years old and quite ripe for marriage. The fifth defendant was her mother and the widow of Chidambara. She was added as a pro forma party, and no relief was claimed against her, but, on the other hand, the plaintiff prayed that the money decreed to her might be handed over to her mother, the fifth defendant, on her behalf. The plaintiff prayed for interest at 6 per cent. per annum on the Rs. 40,000 from the date of the plaint, together with a charge for the principal and interest on the moveable and immoveable properties in the A Schedule, and prayed also for costs against defendants 1 to 4.

Defendants 1 to 4 contested the suit on various grounds. The first was that under a custom of the Nattukottai Chetty caste, they were not liable to pay any marriage expenses 10 the plaintiff from the properties, they had got at the partition under Exhibits A-8 and A-9, as each girl had to be married away by her own father or mo her. They claimed further that the plaintiff’s right, if any, to recover marriage expense from them had become barred by res judicata by reason of the final decision in O.S. No. 120 of 1942 on the file of the lower Court, a suit filed by her and her mo her for partition and delivery of one-fifth share of the family properties to the mo her, and for a marriage provision for the plaintiff, rejecting both the claims. They contended also that even if the plaintiff was entitled to recover any marriage expenses, the suit was premature, as her marriage had not been celebrated and the expenses incurred, and as the marriage was not even fixed up and the terms settled. It was also contended by them that the amount claimed by the plaintiff was extravagant, especially in view of he heavy losses sustained by them in the Malaya business since the partition, and in view of their having, therefore only properties worth hardly five lakhs left. They said that at the most a provision of a maximum of Rs. 10,000, could be made for the marriage expenses of the plaintiff, and this sum too could not be paid over to her till the marriage was celebrated and expenses to that extent incurred.

The learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to a provision for her marriage from defendants 1 to 4?

(2) Whether the claim of the plaintiff for marriage expenses at Rs. 40,000 is proper and necessary, and, if not, what amount should be provided therefor?

(3) Whether the plaintiff’s claim is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in O.S. No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document