VADAKUMPPRATH PILLAIS SON MUTHU Vs. KULATHINKOL KUPPANS SON NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question of Hindu law of particular interest to the Ezhava community in Malabar. This is how the question comes up. The properties which form the subject-matter of this litigation belonged to an Ezhava woman called Kalu. She died issueless in 1936. Chathu her husband then took possession of the properties and subsequently sold them to defendant 1, in the suit. The plaintiff is the brother of Kalu and he claimed that the marriage of Kalu to Chatu had been in the asura form, that he was therefore in law the real heir of Kalu and as such entitled to the properties. On this basis he sought to recover possession of the properties from defendant 1, the vendee from Chathu. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit and the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal took the view that the marriage of Kalu had been in the asura form and decreed the suit. In second appeal Patanjali Sastri J. held that the marriage was not an asura marriage and allowed the appeal and set aside the decisions of the Courts below. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Patanjali Sastri J.

(2.) It is common ground that at the time Kalu was married, one sovereign was paid to her father as memmekanom. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge took the view that this payment was in the nature of "bride price" and they therefore decided that the marriage fell into the category of marriages described as "asura". But as indicated above Pataajali Sastri J. took a different view.

(3.) One essential feature of an asura marriage, the feature which makes the form objection-able, is that the father of the bride receives a gratuity or fee for giving the girl in marriage. Ordinarily, it would be expected of every decent and respectable father when he selects a husband for his daughter to make his selection uninfluenced by any considerations other than the welfare of of the girl. But when he receives a payment for the personal benefit, a very objectionable factor would influence his selection, and it is clearly this which the ancient law-givers took objection to and therefore relegated the form to the category we call "disapproved". When the father accepts money and allows his greed or avarice to sway his judgment, he thereby converts what is intended to be a sacrament into a commercial transaction.