GOPI TIHADI Vs. GOKHEI PANDA
LAWS(ORI)-1953-8-5
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on August 04,1953

GOPI TIHADI Appellant
VERSUS
GOKHEI PANDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.