Jagannath Panda vs Bhikary Panda

Dhavle, J.—The only question raised in this application in revision is whether the suit which had been decreed by the Small Cause Court was at all cognizable by that Court in view of Article 35 (g), Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff''s case was that he advanced Rs. 200 to defendant No. 1 and his brother''s wife, defendant No. 2, for ornaments in connexion with a marriage that was to take place between him and defendant No. 1''s daughter. The marriage was to be performed on the 30th Falgun but on the 28th Falgun the defendant informed the plaintiff that no marriage would be performed, and the plaintiff sued when the defendant refused to return the money advanced by him.

Article 35 (g) bars the cognizance by a Provincial Small Cause Court of a suit "for compensation for breach of contract of betrothal or promise of marriage."

The learned Advocate for petitioner has cited Rameshwar v. Gauri 40 Ind. Cas. 67 : 4 C.L.J. 171 as a case in point, a case where a suit to recover money advanced and to be returned in case a marriage was not performed was held to fall under the article and, therefore, to be not cognizable by a Small Cause Court. It seems, however, that the money in that case was advanced as a loan "on condition that in the month of Baisakh the former (the defendant) would marry his daughter to the latter''s (viz., plaintiff''s) nephew, and on failure to do so would pay back the money" and it was held on the terms of that plaint that there was a dealing between the parties which amounted to an agreement by which the amount of compensation for the breach of promise of marriage was fixed at the sum claimed by the plaintiff. It seems to me that the ruling cited has really little bearing on the facts of the present case, the money that was advanced to the defendant in the present case was not to be kept by him in any event. My attention has also been drawn to Nga La v. Nga Than 14 Ind. Cas. 837 : 5 B. L.T. 57 where it was broadly laid down that a suit for return of certain bangles and money which had been advanced on the understanding that a marriage would take place was excluded from the cognizance of a Small Cause Court, because the basis of the claim was a breach of promise of marriage. It seems, however, that in that case some distinction was made between Hindus and Buddhists, and the wording of Article 35 (g), on the face of it, if I may say so with all respect, confines the bar to suits for compensation for breach of contract of betrothal or promise of marriage and seems to have very little to do with the return of articles or sums of money advanced by one party to the other for use in connexion with marriage celebrations. In Raghuraj Singh Vs. Sham Dei and Another, a suit was brought for the return of ornaments given and for certain money expended in consequence of a marriage which had been arranged but which fell through. Boys, J, who dealt with the case observed that the part of the claim which was for money alleged to have been expended in preliminary marriage ceremonies would have come within the bar of Article 35 (g), but that having regard to the fact that the suit was tried out fully by the Judge of the Small Cause Court on the merits without any objection by either of the parties, and following Ram Lal v. Kabul Singh 25 A. 135 : A.W.N. (1902) 219 he declined to interfere u/s 25, Small Cause Courts Act. That decision suggests very strongly that so far as the suit was for return of ornaments Article 35 (g) had no application and in the present case we have a suit for the return of money advanced for the purchase of ornaments for the bride.

The learned Advocate for the plaintiff opposite party has brought to my notice a number of cases of various High Courts in which it has been held that a suit like the present is not excepted from the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes: Jagornath Dutt v. Rodha Sunder Ghose 13 C.W.N. 26 Notes, Giris Chandra Mahender v. Puma Chandra Dutt 19 C.W.N. 28 Notes-Madhavrao Visvantha v. Shrikrishna Govindrao 79 Ind. Cas. 517 : AIR 1923 Bom. 393 and Chedi Lal and Another Vs. Jawahir Lal, These cases clearly support the case of the opposite party and show that his suit was cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. I am not, therefore, prepared to accept the contention of the petitioner that the suit against him was not cognizable by the Court of Small Causes

The application fails and is dismissed with costs, hearing fee one gold mohur.