Pandrang Row, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Sivanagalingam Pillai against his father-in-law and mother-in-law for recovery of certain, jewels and cloth belonging to his deceased wife, who died on 10th January 1931 at Cuddalore. Naturally one of the allegations in the plaint was that the plaintiffs marriage with the daughter of the defendants was in the Brahma form and this allegation was denied by the defendants, according to whom the marriage was in the Asura form in spite of the fact that it was admitted by the defendants, that a dowry of Rs. 3000 was agreed to be paid in respect of the marriage and was actually paid, Rs. 1600 in the shape of jewels and the balance in cash at the time of the marriage. The contention of the defendants that the marriage was nevertheless in the Asura form was bated mainly on the ground that a parisam or present of Rs. 101 had been paid at the time of the marriage according to the custom of the caste by the plaintiffs brother-in-law on behalf of the plaintiff into the hands of the brides father. This it was contended by the defendants in the written statement was payment of consideration for the bride. It was also alleged that a cloth worth about Rs. 65 was also given at the same time. It was further alleged that it had been agreed also before the marriage that all the expenses of the marriage should be borne by the plaintiff, and that accordingly the marriage was celebrated in the house of the plaintiff at his own cost. These are the facts which were relied upon in support of the contention of the defendants that the marriage was in the Asura form, namely the presents of Rs. 101 in cash and a cloth, and the agreement that the expenses of the marriage should be borne by the plaintiff.

2. Unfortunately instead of the Contentions an the suit being fully tried after taking all the evidence the parties had to adduce, the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have thought that it was possible to determine the suit entirely on the bare statement made by the plaintiff himself, on 23rd March 1933, which according to him was sufficient to show that the marriage was in the Asura form. He found accordingly against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On the same material the District Judge on appeal was of the same opinion and dismissed the plaintiffs appeal. A second appeal by the plaintiff had the same result. And in the present Letters Patent appeal, the only point for us to determine is whether in the light of the statement of the plaintiff referred to above the finding that the marriage was in the Asura form is according to law. It must be made perfectly clear at the same time that any decision that may be pronounced in this appeal will not finally decide any issue that arises in the suit, because the present decision can only proceed on the statement made by the plaintiff and on no other material. That statement has been extracted in the judgments, the material portions of which are as follows:

I am a Vellala by caste. In my caste the usage is that the marriage takes place in the bridegrooms house unless he is too poor to bear the expenses. My expenses connected with the marriage amounted to about Rs. 2400. The expenses included music, dancing, feeding of guests, presents to the purohits, and all other items. The whole expenditure was borne by me and no contribution was taken from the brides party. The marriage wholly took place at my house and at my expense.

3. Along with this statement it must be borne in mind that the payment of a dowry, Rs. 3000, is admitted by both parties. Now the question is whether in view of these facts it is possible to say that the marriage was in the Asura form. As stated by Cornish J. in the judgment under appeal the distinctive mark of the Asura form of marriage is the receipt of pecuniary consideration or bride price by the father of the bride for giving his daughter in marriage. This definition, so to speak, of the Asura form of marriage ha