- (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal in a suit which was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed by the first appellate lower court. The dispute relates to a breach of contract about the marriage after engagement was performed by the defendants. The defendants performed engagement of Kailash Chandra, defendant No. 5, with Chandra Kala, daughter of Radha Mohan, the plaintiff. THIS betrothal ceremony was performed on 1st March, 1964 according to their customary rights. The plaintiff has spent an amount of Rs. 1,200/- for clothes, sweets, etc. , on this betrothal ceremony in addition to Rs. 151/-, which was given in cash and, Rs. 300/- which was spent in 'band' and in other ceremonies.
(2.) THE defendants who were 'dowry hungry', increased the demand of dowry and started to demand more and more dowry. THE plaintiffs having failed to satisfy the defendants about their demand of more dowry, the defendants refused to perform the marriage and committed breach of the betrothal engagement agreement. The plaintiff thus demanded the amount spent and amount given to them either in the form of the cloths, sweets, at the time of betrothal ceremony but the defendant refused to return it back. On 3rd May, 1964 the defendants agreed to pay Rs. 700/-as compensation for the breach of the contract of the marriage and also agreed to return the clothes. Even after this agreement, the defendants committed second breach by non-payment of the amount which resulted in the present suit. The defendants, in their written statement, denied the agreement of the return as well as the performance of the betrothal ceremony. The case of the defendants was that at the most the plaintiffs spent Rs. 601/- on the occasion of engagement or betrothal ceremony. The defendants denied the second agreement to pay Rs. 700/- and return of the clothes also. The following issues were framed:- ************ After recording of the evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit but the decision of the trial court was reversed by the first appellate court as mentioned above.
(3.) MR. Maloo, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that firstly, bride-groom was major at that time and, therefore, no agreement could be entered into without his consent. Secondly, it was argued that the amount of compensation allowed has not been proved and the agreement before the Panchayat is not admissible being violation of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Shri D. K. Soral, the learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the above submission of Shri Maloo, and pointed out that the first appellate court has, on a detailed and comprehensive discussion of the evidence, turned out a well reasoned judgment, holding that the betrothal took place and the amount was spent by the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to re-pay it before the Panchayat, later on, backed out. So far as the application of Arbitration Act is concerned, Shri Soral, pointed out that no such objection was taken at any stage and, whether the Panchayat was done on the basis of the written application or not, is a question of fact, which cannot be agitated at the first time in the second appeal. Shri Soral pointed out that the fact, that the defendant demanded more and more dowry and failure of the plaintiff to satisfy the demand, the betrothal was cancelled by the defendants; is well proved on record by the evidence of five witnesses. In addition to the plaintiff. Gopilal (PW 2), Sitaram (PW 3) and Tejmal (PW 5) have been produced. Shri Soral pointed out that if the defendants' own witness Jagannath (DW 3) had admitted that before the Panchayat, the plaintiffs agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 800/-and admission of the defendant's witness is the best type of evidence. Shir Soral also pointed out that all the questions raised by Shri Maloo are questions of fact and depend upon the appreciation of evidence. It was submitted that in second appeal it is not permissible to enter into re-appreciation of evidence under any garb or pretext, whatsoever. ;