A suit for recovery of money paid as bride-price is maintainable if the agreement remains executory.

PANIGRAHI C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a simple suit for recovery of a sum of money but raises an interesting question of law.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff was on the look out for a bride for his brother, Manu Tihadi, and defendant 2 who is distantly related to him, brought forward a proposal for getting the daughter of defendant 1 married to the plaintiff's brother. On 6-3-44 both the defendants approached the plaintiff who accepted the proposal and it was settled that the plaintiff should pay Rs. 650/-to defendant 1 for the marriage expenses in consideration of defendant 1's giving his daughter in marriage to plaintiff's brother. The Maha-prasad Nirbandha or betrothal took place at the village temple on 11-5-44 and the plaintiff paid the stipulated sum of Rs. 650/- to defendant 1, it was agreed that on the next day defendant 1 would send his daughter to the plaintiff's house for the marriage ceremony. The plaintiff also sent a 'palki' the next day for bringing the bride. Defendant 1, however, refused to send his daughter and demanded Rs. 800/-as there were better offers. The contract was terminated and the defendant promised to return the sum of Rs. 650/- taken from the plaintiff four days later. When the demand was made again on 16-3-44, the defendant refused to pay back the money taken by him. The plaintiff filed a criminal case under Section 420, I. P. C. , but it was thrown out as being of a civil nature. The plaintiff, therefore, brought this suit for the recovery of Rs. 650/advanced by him together with Rs. 72/-as compensation and damages for the loss and expenses incurred by him.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT 1 denied the betrothal as well as the advance of money and pleaded that the suit was a sequel to previous enmity. His further plea was that the plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the contract and recover the advance made as the alleged contract was illegal. Defendant 2 has remained ex parte throughout.

( 4 ) THE learned Munsif held that the plaintiff's case, had been amply proved by the evidence of his witnesses P. Ws. 2 to 8. He also held that the money has been paid as 'kanya suna' or bride-price and not for meeting the marriage expenses. He further held that the money had been advanced as consideration for obtaining the consent of defendant 1 to give his daughter in marriage to the plaintiff's brother. He overruled the contention of the defendant that the agreement with the plaintiff was illegal on the ground of its being opposed to public policy. He accordingly gave a decree to the plaintiff for Rs. 650/-, the amount actually advanced by him but disallowed his claim to recover the damages and compensation.

( 5 ) ON appeal by the contesting defendant, the learned District Judge set aside both the finding of the trial court and held that the contract put forward by the plaintiff was unenforceable, as it was immoral since it amounted to the sale of a bride for a price and that it was not for the welfare of the bride. He also disbelieved the story of payment of Rs. 650/-on the ground that P. Ws. 2 and 7 were not mentioned as witnesses by the plaintiff in the complaint which he had filed in the criminal court prior to the filing of the present civil suit. He disbelieved p. W. 3 for the reason that he was an ex-tenant of the defendant. In the result, the appeal filed by defendant 1 was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. It is against this reversing judgment of the learned District Judge that the plaintiff has come up in appeal.

( 6 ) MR. M. S. Rao, appearing for the appellant, contends that the lower appellate court has not attached due importance to the findings of the trial court and has itself gone wrong in its appreciation of the evidence. He further contends that the lower appellate court has fallen into an error in holding that the suit was to enforce an agreement to contract a marriage with defendant 1's daughter while, in fact, the suit was one merely for the recovery of money received by the defend