Supreme Court dismisses suits, upholds compromise decree. Marriage presumption in Brahma form.

The Supreme Court dismissed both suits with costs, setting aside the decrees of the High Court. It held that Bangaru Ammal's marriage was not in the Asura form, the compromise decree was binding on the plaintiffs, the transfer of C and C-1 Schedule properties was limited to the Melwaram right, and the plaintiffs' claim regarding item 70 of the C Schedule properties was barred by limitation. The Court upheld the presumption that the marriage was in the Brahma form, emphasizing the burden of proof was not met by the plaintiffs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the marriage of Bangaru Ammal in 'Asura form'.
2. Binding nature of the compromise decree on the plaintiffs.
3. Transfer of C and C-1 Schedule properties under the compromise decree.
4. Possession and limitation regarding item 70 of the C Schedule properties.
5. Presumption and burden of proof regarding the form of marriage.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the marriage of Bangaru Ammal in 'Asura form':
The primary issue revolved around whether Bangaru Ammal's marriage was in the 'Asura form'. According to Hindu Law, an Asura marriage involves the bridegroom giving wealth to the bride's father and taking the bride, essentially making it a sale of the bride. The evidence presented by the plaintiffs suggested that there was a practice in the community to give 'parisam' (bride price) in cash or kind. However, both the Subordinate Judge and the High Court found that there was no substantial evidence to prove that a sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid as 'parisam' at Bangaru Ammal's marriage. The Supreme Court emphasized that Asura marriage is characterized by the bridegroom paying a price for the bride, and mere expenditure on the marriage by the bridegroom's party does not constitute an Asura marriage. The Court concluded that the marriage of Bangaru Ammal was not in the Asura form.

2. Binding nature of the compromise decree on the plaintiffs:
The compromise decree passed in C.S. 31 of 1925 was challenged by the plaintiffs on the ground that it was not binding on them. The Subordinate Judge and the High Court held that the compromise decree was binding on the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court did not find any reason to differ from this view, as the compromise decree was valid and binding on the estate of Bangaru Ammal.

3. Transfer of C and C-1 Schedule properties under the compromise decree:
The High Court held that only the Melwaram right in C and C-1 Schedule properties passed to Veerappa Chettiar under the compromise decree, and there was no clear evidence regarding who was in actual possession of these lands. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the plaintiffs' right to recover possession of C and C-1 Schedule lands should be reserved for appropriate proceedings.

4. Possession and limitation regarding item 70 of the C Schedule properties:
The High Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the plaintiffs were not in possession of item 70 of the C Schedule properties within 12 years of the suit, thus barring their claim by limitation. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, affirming that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by time.

5. Presumption and burden of proof regarding the form of marriage:
The Supreme Court reiterated the presumption under Hindu Law that a marriage is in the Brahma form unless proven otherwise. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting that the marriage was in an Asura form. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption that Bangaru Ammal's marriage was in the Brahma form. The Court also noted that mere ceremonial rituals like giving Kambu do not constitute a bride price.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the decrees of the High Court and dismissed both suits with costs. The Court held that Bangaru Ammal's marriage was not in the Asura form, the compromise decree was binding on the plaintiffs, the transfer of C and C-1 Schedule properties was limited to the Melwaram right, and the plaintiffs' claim regarding item 70 of the C Schedule properties was barred by limitation. The presumption that the marriage was in the Brahma form was upheld, and the burden of proof was not met by the plaintiffs.

---