Before Mr. Justice L. S. Jackson and Mr. Justice Glover. JOGESWAR CHAKRABATTI v. PANCH KAURI CHAKRABATTI.* Contract-Consideration-Promise by Brother to give Sister in marriage. A certain amount of money had been paid by one Hindu to another in consideration of a promise by the latter that he would give his sister in marriage to the former. The girl's mother was alive. In a suit for recovery of the amount on the ground that the latter had failed to fulfil his promise, held, that the suit would lie. THE following case was submitted by the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Ranaghat for the opinion of the High Court: Case.-Plaintiff sues the defendant for rupees 59, paid to him in consideration of a promise made by the defendant, that the latter would give plaintiff his sister in marriage, which contract has been broken, and the girl married to another. Defendant was not the legal guardian of his sister, her mother being still alive. Defendant's pleader has taken an objection on the ground that the consideration being an immoral one, no action can lie for the breach of the contract, nor (both parties being equally in fault) to recover money paid on account of it. I consider part of the alleged payments proved, and refer the case for the High Court's decision as to whether the contract is a valid one. Under the English law, it would appear, that the contract would be regarded as invalid, on the ground of its being contrary to public policy to permit marriage to be made the subject of mercenary speculation.-Addison on Contracts, page 741, 5th Edition. It may, however, be doubted whether the English law on this subject can be considered applicable to this country, and it appears to be a common practice not only to remunerate matchmakers or Ghattaks for their services, but also for the husband to pay a certain sum, called Pun, to the relatives of the wife previous to the marriage. At the same time the reasons for discouraging such practices would seem at least equally strong in this country as in England. The practice of demanding from the suitor a Pun, the amount of which goes entirely to the * Reference No. 16, from the Officiating Judge of the Small Cause Court of Ranaghat, dated the 27th June 1870. 1870 July 20. 1870 JOGESWAR CHAKRABATTI parent's benefit, none of it being in the nature of a settlement on the wife, must undoubtedly tend to induce the exercise of PANCH KAURI parental influence from corrupt motives, and encourage the CHAKRABATTI. buying and selling of women. v. As I am not aware that the point has been as yet decided, and as the principle involved is one of considerable importance, I have referred it for the decision of the High Court, with an expression of my own opinion that the suit cannot be maintained. The opinion of the High Court was delivered by JACKSON, J.-It appears to us that, in the circumstances of this case, an action to recover back the money paid to the defendant will lie. 1870 March 11. [ORIGINAL CIVIL.] Before Mr. Justice Macpherson. PARBATI CHARAN MOOKERJEE v. RAMNARAYAN MATILAL AND OTHERS. Deposit-Act XIV of 1859, s. 1, cl. 15—Cause of Action. The plaintiff, on leaving Calcutta, in 1850, deposited a sum of money with A., B., and C., on which they were to pay him Rs. 9 monthly, and return the principal on his demanding it. Rs. 9 were paid to him monthly until within twelve months of this suit. A. and B. had died since the date of the deposit. This suit was brought against C. and the representatives of A. and B. to recover the amount deposited, and a decree was passed against C. on his own admission. But the representatives of A. and B. set up that the suit was barred. Held, that it was not a deposit under section 1, clause 15 of Act XIV of 1859. But held also, in accordance with the English cases (from which, however, the learned Judge dissented) that the cause of action arose from the date of the agreement to repay the money on demand, and not from the date of the demand, and therefore the suit was barred. THE plaintiff in this suit sought to recover from Ramnarayan Matilal, and Nanda Gopal Matilal and Braja Gopal Matilal, the sons of Nilmani Matilal, deceased, and executors of his will, and Rajendra Matilal and Srimati Sibosunderi Debi, the administrators of the goods and effects of Gabind Chandra Matilal, deceased, the sum of rupees 1,100, with interest, being the balance of a sum of rupees 1,200, alleged to have been deposited by him with the said Ramnarayan Matilal, Nilmani Matilal, and Gabind Chandra Matilal, who formed a joint Hindu family. The defendants, the representatives of Nilmani and Gabind Chandra, denied all knowledge of the deposit, and pleaded the Statute of Limitations. The defendant Ramnarayan Matilal admitted the deposit, and in a letter addressed by him to the plaintiff's attorneys offered to pay his onethird share of the sum claimed, with interest and proportionate costs. It appeared that Nilmani, Gabind Chandra, and Ramnarayan were the sons of one Biswanath Matilal, and formed a joint Hindu family. After the respective deaths of Gabind Chandra and Nilmani, their representatives continued to be members of the joint family, both as between themselves and Ramnarayan, until the year 1868. In the year 1850, the plaintiff, who was a distant relation, and a dependant of the family, lost his wife and only son; and having determined to retire from Calcutta and live in Benares, he sold his wife's ornaments and jewels, and deposited the proceeds, a sum of about rupees 1,194-8, with Nilmani, Gabind Chandra, and Ramuarayan, in the month of April or May 1850. At the time of the deposit, it was agreed between the family and the plaintiff that the plaintiff should receive interest on the whole sum, at the rate of rupees 9 per mensem, and be at liberty to draw out the whole, or any part of the money, whenever he liked; but that so long as the major part of the sum remained in the hands of the family, he was to receive interest at the above rate. The sum was entered in the books of the family to the credit of the plaintiff, under the head of Amanat, translated by the Court interpreter to be "deposit." Towards the end of April or May 1850, there being a few rupees due to the plaintiff on account of interest, the sum of rupees 1,200 was credited to the plaintiff on the books of the family, and a separate account was opened in the plaintiff's name. The plaintiff continued to receive his interest during the lifetimes of Nilmani and Gabind Chandra, the money being sent to him 1870 PARBATI v. MATILAL through one Dinanath Ghosal, since deceased, another relation of the family. There was some controversy as to whether inMOOKERJEE terest was paid to the plaintiff by the representatives of Gabind RAMNARAYAN Chandra and Nilmani after the separation in 1868, but no evidence was offered by these defendants to contradict the plaintiff, who swore he had received such interest. Rajendra Matilal, one of the defendants, being present in Court, was examined by the learned Judge, under section 166 of the Civil Procedure Code, but no reliance was placed upon his denial. Mr. Woodroffe (Mr. Evans with him) for the plaintiff. Mr. Marindin (Mr. Branson with him) for the representatives of Gabind Chandra. Mr. Kennedy (Mr. Bonnerjee with him) for the representatives of Nilmani.-This is not a deposit such as is meant by clause 15, section 1 of Act XIV of 1859. A deposit with interest is certainly a new thing; but it cannot be placed any higher than a deposit with a banker, and in that case the ordinary limitation will take effect-Foley v. Hill (1), Carr v. Carr (2), Devaynes v. Noble (3). [MACPHERSON, J.-I am clear this is not a deposit within the meaning of the Limitation Act. But here the plaintiff's agreement was that the money should not be payable until he demanded payment, and it appears upon the evidence that he only demanded payment last year]. If the Court held that that was the agreement it would be a contract and would survive to Ramnarayan, and clients could not be liable. [MACPHERSON, J. -It is a debt of the joint family, and your clients are liable, if it is not barred. But the cause of action did not arise till last year]. If the Court were to hold that debts of this kind would evade the Limitation Law, people would be able to sue for a debt after fifty years. Indeed, it could be sued for after any length of time. The object of the Legislature would thus be upset. [MACPHERSON, J.-No Legislature on earth ever intended that a case such as this should be barred]. In Norton v. Ellan (4), my 1870 PARBATI V. MATILAL Sergeant Petersdroff argued precisely in the same way for the plaintiff. He said, "when a note is payable on demand, a de"mand is necessary before the Statute begins to run;" and MOOKERJEE further on, "a strong argument arises from the circumstance of RAMNARAYAN "its being made payable with interest, as it shows that the "parties intended some time to elapse before a demand;" to "say that the Statute runs from the date of a note payable on "demand, would be to say that there is a breach of contract the "moment the note is written." But Parke, B., distinctly held that limitation ran from the date of the note. He further said, "that the case of a note payable on demand was the same as "the case of money lent payable upon request, with interest, "where no demand is necessary before bringing the action." Though the case is clearly barred, it will not be a hard case for the plaintiff, for Ramnarayan has admitted the debt, and is doubtless liable for the whole amount. Mr. Branson in the same interest. MACPHERSON, J.-The plaintiff seeks to recover rupees 1,100, being the balance of an amount deposited by him with three brothers, Nilmani, Gabind Chandra, and Ramnarayan Matilal. The plaintiff states the deposit was made in 1255 (1848), and that the three brothers agreed to pay him rupees 9 per month for interest, which was, in fact, for years paid to him by them or their representatives. The case which the plaintiff has proved is that he was a distant relation and dependant of the family of Biswanath Matilal, the father of Nilmani, Gabind Chandra, and Ramnarayan Matilal; and that he had lived in their family dwelling-house for many years; that, in 1255 (1848), being about to leave Calcutta, and to take up his abode permanently at Benares, he placed in the hands of the three sons of Biswanath (who was then dead), the sum of rupees 1,200, when it was agreed that the money should remain with them, and they should remit him rupees 9 monthly, but that when he wanted back the principal, he should have it. It is proved that the plaintiff went to Benares, and that the rupees 9 were remitted from 1255 (1848), until within the last twelve months, or thereabouts. It is proved, I think, beyond |