The question in this appeal is a simple but interesting one, namely, whether the amount advanced under a promissory note for the purpose of celebrating a marriage contrary to the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is recoverable. The facts are simple and are not in dispute.

The plaintiff is the brother-in-law of the first defendant, having married his sister. The second defendant is the mother of the first defendant. The second defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000 from the plaintiff for the purpose of celebrating the marriage of the first defendant and executed a promissory note, Exhibit A-1, dated 29th May, 1944, in his favour as guardian of her minor son. As the first defendant was described in the promissory note itself as a minor and as the plaintiff was the brother-in-law, it cannot be disputed that he had knowledge of the fact that the money was borrowed for celebrating the marriage in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Indeed, no attempt has been made either in the Court below or before me to contend that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the said facts. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.29 of 1947 on the fi