The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove fraudulent activity and the failure to discharge the onus of proving the alleged mental ailment, as well as the consideration of evidence such as qualifications and employment details in assessing the alleged mental disorder.

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

The plaintiffs-appellants are in second appeal before this Court. A suit for recovery of damages was filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the defendant-respondents in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh. The entire basis of filing the suit was that plaintiff-appellant No. 3 had been enticed into matrimony with defendant-respondent No. 3 by suppressing material facts as regards the mental ailment of defendant-respondent No. 3, whereas he being of mental unstable mind and not being in a position to perform his marital obligations. The contention raised was that a fraud had been played upon the plaintiff-appellants. Briefly stated, it had been pleaded that a petition for annulment of marriage between plaintiff-appellant No. 3 and defendant-respondent No. 3 had been filed in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and the same had been accepted and their marriage had been annulled by judgment and decree dated 3.8.2005. Plaintiff-appellant No. 1 in December, 2003 had invited proposals through internet for the matrimonial alliance of his daughter i.e. plaintiff-appellant No. 3. On 30.3.2004, defendant-respondent No. 3 had responded through e-mail and had stated his qualifications and employment details therein. It was pleaded that defendant-respondent No. 3 had, however, suppressed material fact that he was suffering from a mental disorder and such fact was known to his parents i.e. defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The marriage was solemnized on 27.6.2004, whereupon plaintiff-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 had incurred a huge expenditure amounting to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs. It is pleaded that in the year 2004, plaintiff-appellant No. 3 accompanied defendant-respondent No. 3 i.e. her husband at that point of time to the city of Zurich, Switzerland and thereupon discovered the unstable mental health of the defendant-respondent No. 3. In a nutshell it was pleaded that it was thereupon that the annulment of marriage was sought for and granted and it is on account of the fraudulent and wrongful acts of the defendant-respondents that the suit for recovery of damages had been instituted. The defendant-respondents contested the suit and it was pleaded on merits that the marriage was solemnized after due and free consent of the parties. It was also pleaded that there had been no concealment on their part. The factum of defendant-respondent No. 3 suffering from a mental disorder was also specifically denied. The suit for recovery of damages was dismissed vide order dated 12.1.2009 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh. The Trial Court conclusively held that the plaintiff-appellants had failed to prove on record that any fraud had been played upon them by the defendants-respondents. It was held by the Trial Court that no cogent evidence had been led to return a finding that the plaintiff-appellants had been trapped into a matrimonial alliance and there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that defendant-respondent No. 3 was a person, who was lacking in physical/mental capacity with regard to his marital obligations.

2. The plaintiff-appellants being dissatisfied filed a civil appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and the same has been dismissed vide impugned judgment 31.5.2011. Resultantly, the plaintiff-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.

3. I have heard Mr. K.L. Kohli, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellants at length.

4. Mr. Kohli has vehemently argued that the findings of both the Courts below are totally erroneous and based on surmises and conjectures. As per him on the basis of evidence led on record a conclusion could clearly be drawn that defendant-respondent No. 3 was suffering from a mental disorder and the same was never disclosed to the plaintiff-appellants and as such the consent for the matrimonial alliance between plaintiff-appellant No. 3 and defendant-respondent No. 3 had been obtained by playing fraud upon the plai