Shephard, J.

1. The plaintiff a widow, seeks to recover from her husbands brother money expended by her on the celebration of her daughters marriage. The plaintiffs deceased husband and the defendant were members of an undivided family, the property of which is in the hands of the defendant. It is found that the defendant, though he professes to have been ready to get his niece married, did not in fact take any steps to that end but, on the contrary, improperly refused to perform the girls marriage. Accordingly the girl was married at her mothers cost and it must be taken that the marriage was a proper one. In the Court of First Instance no question was raised by the defendant except as to the alleged refusal of the defendant to have the marriage performed and as to the amount spent by the plaintiff.

2. The District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the defendant was under no obligation to provide for the expense of his brothers daughters marriage. In support of this opinion he refers to some observations made in Namasevayam Pillai v. Annammai Ummal (1869) 4 M.H.C.R. 339. The point decided in that case is that a brother in the position of the defendant in this case