JUDGMENT
The suit is by the widow and daughter of the brother's son of two sisters to recover the property of their aunts. The defendant claims to have obtained a conveyance of it from the reversioner of the husband of one of the aunts. The District Munsif was of opinion that the defendant's vendor was not a reversioner. He also came to the conclusion that the two aunts were married in the Asura form of marriage and that the plaintiff was the preferential heir. The two Courts have assumed that if the bride's parents received what is known as parisu panam it must be deemed that the girls were married in the Asura form and not in the Brahma form. Apparently the pleaders who appeared in the case as well as the two judicial officers took it for granted that the parisu panam meant bride-price. There is nothing in the evidence adduced in the case to show that the money paid to the parents at the time of the marriage as parisu panam was the consideration for giving the girl in marriage. There is no authoritative definition of the term “Parisam”. In Winslow's dictionary it is translated as “donation, fee, present, etc., by the bridegroom to the bride before proceeding to the house, for marriage, as jewels, apparel, money, rice, fruits etc’. It may be that Parisam is a relic of what in the old days was regarded as the price for the bride. The evidence of the caste men or of the community has not been taken to ascertain the origin of this custom or the reason for its prevalence in the community. It was held in Authikesavalu Chetty v. Ramanujam Chetty that a small present given to the bride's parents should not be regarded as bride's price. The real test is whether in the community or among the parties the payment of Parisam was tacitly understood as being substantially a payment for taking the girl in marriage. That will depend generally upon the evidence in the case. Unfortunately, in this case having regard to the attitude of all parties the real question has not been considered. We may draw attention to certain well understood principles of Hindu Law on this subject. In Manu Chapter 3 Sect. 54 it is indicated that the payment of bride-price is opposed to all Shastras; further on we read that if any money paid by the bridegroom is utilised for the benefit of the bride that should not be regarded as bride-price.
Ordinarily the presumption is that whatever may be the caste to which the parties belong, a marriage should be regarded as being in the Brahma form unless it can be shown that it was in the Asura form. Authikesavalu v. Ramanujam Chetty Chunilal v. Surajram Hira v. Hanaji Pema and Muthu Aiyar v. Chidambara Aiyar lay down this proposition. In this state of the authorities we think it desirable that further evidence should be taken on the question. Having regard to the circumstance that in the Courts below the 1st defendant did not ask for a specific issue on the question, we would have refused to start this enquiry but for the fact that our decision on this question may be regarded as laying down that wherever Parisam is paid the marriage should be regarded as being in the Asura form. This is a serious proposition which if it is to be laid down, must be done after taking the evidence of the community to which the parties belong. At the same time we are of opinion that as this enquiry has been necessitated by the failure of the defendant to get the proper issues settled, he must pay the costs of this enquiry in any event as well as the costs in the Lower Appellate Court. We shall therefore ask the lower Appellate Court to return findings upon the following questions: (a) In the community to which the parties belong is the payment of Parisam equivalent to the payment of bride-price? (b) Did the parties in the particular case regard the payment of Parisam as bride-price? The Lower Court can take fresh evidence and should come to a conclusion on it in the light of the observations we have above made. It is also necessary to ask for a finding on the evidence already on record upon two questions which have not been decided by the District Judge namely, (c) Whether the 1st defendant's vendor was the nearest reversioner to the husbands of the two sisters? and (d) Are there any reversioners nearer than the plaintiffs?
Findings should be submitted in three months; seven days will be allowed for objections.
In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment the District Judge of Tinnevelly submitted the following:
FINDINGS
(a) That in the community to which the parties belonged the payment of parisam was equivalent to the payment of bride price,
(b) That the parties in the particular case regarded the payment of parisam as bride-price,
(c) That the 1st defendant's vendor was not the nearest reversioner to the husbands of the two sisters,
And (d) that there were no reversioners nearer than the plaintiffs.
[This Second Appeal came on for final hearing after the return of the finding of the Lower Appellate Court on the issues referred by this Court for trial on 17th July 1919.]
JUDGMENT
Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar wants to raise the question that even on the findings the marriage is one not sanctioned by the Hindu Law and that therefore plaintiff has no locus standi to sue for the property.
As this point was not raised in the pleadings or issues and as its determination might render necessary the consideration of the question whether the plaintiff can support his title on the ground of possession, we must refuse to allow this question to be argued. On the question decided by the District Judge, although sitting in second appeal, it is not open to us to differ from the lower Court's conclusion, we are not satisfied that the finding is conclusive of similar rights in the District as the evidence let in has been meagre and unsatisfactory.
We however accept the finding in this case and dismiss the second appeal with costs.
S. S.Appeal dismissed.