9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Dismissal of suit for recovering marriage expenses and interest. - Legal obligation of father to bear daughter's marriage expenses. - Possession of joint family property by the defendant. - Interpretation of previous judgments regarding father's obligation. Analysis: The second appeal concerns the dismissal of a suit by two plaintiffs seeking to recover marriage expenses and interest. The plaintiffs, mother and daughter, filed the suit for expenses related to the daughter's marriage. The lower courts dismissed the suit, citing no legal obligation on the father to bear the daughter's marriage expenses. The main issue is whether the defendant, the father, was in possession of joint family property, which would impose a legal obligation on him to meet the marriage expenses. The defendant admitted that the property in his possession was ancestral, establishing his legal obligation. The courts below relied on precedents like 'Sundariammal v. Subramana Aiyar' and 'Subbayya v. Anantaramayya' to determine the father's obligation. It was established that if there is joint family property, the father has a legal obligation to bear the daughter's marriage expenses. However, if there is no joint family property, the obligation is moral, not legal. The lower appellate court failed to consider the distinction between cases with and without joint family property, leading to the dismissal of the suit based on incorrect grounds. The judgment sets aside the lower courts' decision and remands the case for further inquiry into the plaintiffs' entitlement to the claimed amount. The second appeal is allowed, and the case is sent back to the trial court for proper adjudication. The appellants are granted a refund of the court fee paid for the appeal. No costs are awarded, and no leave is granted for further appeal.
|
