Judgment : Originally a bride and bridegroom fought in the suit tooth and nail. Now, they are no longer bride and bridegroom because they were married but to different persons. The fire burning in their hearts in view of certain innate happenings in their life is the motive for this litigation. 2. The plaintiff sued the 1st defendant and his parents, namely, defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.331 of 2005, in the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town for damages for breach of promise to marry her. 3. The gist of her case is this: She (plaintiff) belongs to Madurai. He (1st Defendant) belongs to Aranthangi in Pudukottai District. The 1st defendant and his family had seen plaintiff (bride) on 18.09.2004 at her house in Madurai. They were satisfied with the bride. On 03.10.2004, at Madurai, discussion for other formalities between both the families took place. Again, on 10.10.2004, further discussions were held and date of their betrothal was finalized. As agreed, on 24.10.2004, in Madurai, their betrothal took place and their marriage is to take place on 28.11.2004. The girl dreamt of him. So also the 1st defendant. But, on 01.11.2004, Sivakumar, brother of 1st defendant, informed the plaintiff's parents that his brother is not liking to marry her. The girl's family was shell shocked. They felt that they were let down. The girl was mentally upset. Under the circumstances, plaintiff sued the defendants seeking Rs.50,000/-towards loss of mental agony and reputation and Rs.25,000/- towards expenditure incurred for the betrothal ceremony. 4. Off-suit of this is the filing of the joint statement by the defendants. According to them, at the very inception photograph of a girl was shown to 1st defendant (D.W.1) through a mediator Pandian (P.W.4). 1st defendant was in his dreams. But, it became a sand built fort. Because at betrothal on 24.10.2004, his beauty was not shown to him. Some other girl was seated. Actually fraud was practiced upon them. In such circumstances, no breach of promise to marry her will arise. Defendants have also spent sufficiently. A gold chain weighing four sovereigns and a nice silk saree worth Rs.5,000/- were presented to the bride. She is keeping all these items with her. There is no basis for the suit claim. There is no details as to the expenses. 5. On these divergent pleadings, issues were framed and the suit was tried. Defendants have also spent sufficiently. A gold chain weighing four sovereigns and a nice silk saree worth Rs.5,000/- were presented to the bride. She is keeping all these items with her. There is no basis for the suit claim. There is no details as to the expenses. 5. On these divergent pleadings, issues were framed and the suit was tried. Before the trial Court, plaintiff Valarmathi examined herself as P.W.1, her sister's husband Sankaiah, her brother Muniasamy and their family friend Pandian were examined as P.Ws.2 to 4 and also Exs.A.1 to A.17 have been marked, while, 1st defendant Elangovan examined himself as D.W.1 and Ravi and Rengaiah as D.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3. 6. Appreciating the submissions of both sides, and the evidence, the trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff that there was breach of promise of marriage and decreed the suit as prayed for with 12% pendenti liti interest and 6% future interest. 7. Aggrieved, the defendants have directed the first appeal in A.S.No.22 of 2009, before the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. Since the judgment was equally in favour of both that it accepted the case of plaintiff that there is breach of promise of marriage, it, accepted a new case of adjustment of her claim through her retention of their articles and they have also spent and allowed the appeal and the net result is 'operation success, patient dies' to both. Embarrassed by this decision, plaintiff directed this Second Appeal. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the then learned brother formulated the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is not wrong that there is no clear Breach of Contract of marriage on the facts and circumstances of the case on the Principles as adumbrated AIR 1925 Bombay P 97 and AIR 1941 Bombay P 129 and 2006 (AIHC) (NOC) P 153? 2. Is the Lower Appellate Court right in law in deducting the value of the gold chain, saree and marriage hall expenses from the compensation amount as prayed for in the plaint when the impersonation is rightly rejected and the 1st respondent alone responsible for the breach of marriage contract? 3. 2. Is the Lower Appellate Court right in law in deducting the value of the gold chain, saree and marriage hall expenses from the compensation amount as prayed for in the plaint when the impersonation is rightly rejected and the 1st respondent alone responsible for the breach of marriage contract? 3. It is not the Lower Appellate Court is wrong in canvassing and holding that the appellant has to return the jewels and saree to the 1st respondent when there is no pleading of set off in the written statement? 4. It is not the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that this appellant has to return the things given to the appellant during the betrothal when there is no evidence to sustain such a finding that too in the absence of specific pleadings?” 9. Both side counsels exhibited their forensic skill in their performing autopsy on the judgments of the Courts below. Though it is a simple suit for damages, both side counsels nerved very much and made their submissions and made us not to nerve too much, the learned counsels made this Court at ease. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would cite R.FERNANDEZ VS. J. GONSALVES (A.I.R. 1925 BOMBAY 97) and KHIMJI KUVERJI VS. LALJI KARAMSI (A.I.R. 1941 BOMBAY 129) and would submit that a suit for breach of promise of marriage is maintainable in a civil Court. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant would criticize the 1st defendant that after having seen the bride also on 24.10.2004 at the betrothal and fully participated in the function, subsequently, after a considerable lapse of time he came with a story. It is not change of bride, it is change of his mind. Through voluminous evidence, this chameleon has been exposed. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant also would cite ANANTHASWAMY, A.C. VS. BORAIAH (2004 (5) CTC 360) and would submit that when fraud is pleaded in the written statement, it should be detailed and it should be particularized. But, the pleadings of defendants is bereft of such details and particulars. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court and would submit that after having concurred with findings of the trial Court that there is no change of bride, the first appellate Court gone astray. It itself created a new case for the defendants. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court and would submit that after having concurred with findings of the trial Court that there is no change of bride, the first appellate Court gone astray. It itself created a new case for the defendants. It came out with a dissertation that as four sovereigns of gold chain has been withheld by her, she is not entitled to file the suit. It means let her be happy with that for having lost her honour. And further 1st appellate Court also reasoned that there is no full details as to the betrothal expenses and bridegroom side also spent considerably as a ground for its rejection of the reimbursement of the expenses prayed for by the plaintiff. In this connection the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even that is not the case of the defendants. There is no counter claim or set off pleaded in the written statement. Even in the written statement they have reserved their right for taking action with respect to those items. But the first appellate Court held so knowing that they can go for further action. Such a finding is quite against the case of the parties and rules of pleadings. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that coming to this Court by way of Second Appeal requires involvement of certain substantial questions of law. In this connection, the learned counsel cited NALLAMMAL VS. DHANSHKODI (2000 (IV) CTC 513) and KRISHNAN VS. BACKIAM (2008 (1) CTC 446). 15. The learned counsel for the respondents is fair enough to submit that there is unity as to the acceptance of plaintiff's basis of claim of damages by both the Courts below. They have determined that there is no change of bride. But they have fell into error on the aspect of quantum of damages. The plaint is bereft of details of expenses. Rs.25,000/-towards betrothal is a vague statement. There is no basis or details for such a claim. There is some material aspect, namely, the defendant side having given four sovereigns of gold chain to the plaintiff, which is not being replicated by the plaintiff by way of filing a reply statement. This is a colossal defect on the part of the case of plaintiff. There is no basis or details for such a claim. There is some material aspect, namely, the defendant side having given four sovereigns of gold chain to the plaintiff, which is not being replicated by the plaintiff by way of filing a reply statement. This is a colossal defect on the part of the case of plaintiff. After having retained four sovereigns of gold chain, plaintiff wants to have an edge over the defendants. In the circumstances, there is inequity in her conduct in coming to the Court to claim damages. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the material aspect of the case should be pleaded. A party coming to the Court must unravel clearly the truth of the case. In this regard, he would cite POPAT AND KOTECHA PROPERTY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF ASSOCIATION (2005 (4) CTC 489). 17. I have anxiously considered the wise arguments of both, referred to the piece of evidence read to us by both and perused the judgments of the Courts below, which were under severe attack and also perused the catena of decisions cited by both. 18. It is not an uncommon event in this Court in adjudicating money claims. But, the present type of money suit is really uncommon. It is a rarity and oddity. They should be so as such suits should not become common and more in law Courts. 19. Concisely the case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant and his parents (defendants 2 & 3) seen her a bride, agreed to marry her, participated in the betrothal, thereafter, backed out of the promise, she suffered mentally, thus, she seeks damages for breach of promise to marry her. 20. However, the case of the defendant precisely is that earlier a girl's photo has been shown to them as the bride, however, at the time of betrothal, another girl was produced, the girl's family practiced fraud, it is a fraud family, so the contact was repudiated, so, they are not answerable to them in damages. 21. In ROSE FERNANDAS VS. JOSEPH CONSALVES (A.I.R. 1925 BOMBAY 97) it was held that a suit for damages for breach of promise to marry is maintainable. 22. 21. In ROSE FERNANDAS VS. JOSEPH CONSALVES (A.I.R. 1925 BOMBAY 97) it was held that a suit for damages for breach of promise to marry is maintainable. 22. In ROSE FERNANDAS (supra) Justice Taraporewala aptly observed as under: "The breach of a promise of marriage has much more serious consequences in India in the case of girls in as much as the change of the girl making another good match are seriously affected." 23. Since then in India there were many changes and scientific advancements, but as regards the plight of an engaged girl whose marriage proposal was breached by the other party the position is same as what expressed by Taraporewala J in A.I.R. 1925 BOMBAY 97. 24. In this case, the betrothal took place at Madurai on 24.10.2004 in the girl's sister's house. On that day, Ex.B.1 betrothal agreement was drawn between both sides and signed by both parties, it includes 1st defendant - (D.W.1), the bridegroom. The marriage date is fixed on 24.10.2004. Defendants then did not protest that the girl shown is quite different from the girl figured in the photograph already shown to 1st defendant. The bridegroom (D.W.1) and, his parents, friends and relatives enjoyed the hospitality of the plaintiff's family, they have also presented betrothal saree and jewel also to the bride. They bid farewell to the girl and her family members and left to Aranthangi. Thereafter, on 01.11.2004, Sivakumar, brother of 1st defendant informed the girl's family that 1st defendant is not liking to marry her. Subsequently, the reason given for such repudiation is that the girl's family has changed the bride. 25. It is relevant here to note the following observations made in KHIMJI KUVERJI SHAH VS. LALJI KARAMSI RAGHAVIJI (A.I.R. 1941 BOMBAY 129): "A betrothal in Hindu law is a promise to give a girl in marriage, and its form is that of a promise by the father or guardian of the girl in favour of the bridegroom and/or the bridegroom's father or guardian. No ceremonies are essential to the validity of a betrothal as they are in the case of a marriage. No ceremonies are essential to the validity of a betrothal as they are in the case of a marriage. There are certain texts of the Hindu law according to which it used to be understood that a betrothal agreement was irrevocable, but the more correct view is the one which regards a betrothal as a revocable promise of marriage, though such revocation would be improper without a just cause, such as where a better suitor is forthcoming for the girl. A betrothal can also be broken off if either party was found to be of a lower caste or to have an incurable disease, or the intended husband was found to be unfit, or the girl was found to be unchaste, or for other reasons. It was held by this Court as far back as 1870 in UMED KIKA VS. NAGINDAS NARATAMDAS (7 B H C R (OC) 122) that a betrothal agreement cannot be specifically enforced, and it was pointed out that a case of a breach of a contract of marriage had never been considered one in which anything more than a money award could be decreed. This case was followed in IN THE MATTER OF GUNPUT NARAIN SINGH (1875 1 CAL 74). The point, however, has since been settled by the Legislature, and it has now been laid down by the Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), S.21, cl. (b), as explained by the illustration to that clause, that a contract of betrothal cannot be specifically enforced. The party injured by the breach is entitled to recover compensation for any pecuniary damages that may have been sustained and also for any injury to character or prospects in life which may naturally arise in the normal course of the breach. It was held in ABDUL RAZAK V. MOHAMED HUSSEIN (42 BOM 499) by Kemp J., where the parties were Mohamedans, that in a suit for damages for breach of promise of marriage plaintiff was not entitled to damages as in an action for breach of promise of marriage which is a peculiarity of the English common law, but to a return merely of the ornaments, clothes and other things given at the time or after the betrothal. A breach of a betrothal agreement, however, stands on the same footing as the breach of any other contract, and under S.73, Contract Act, the legal consequence of a breach would follow. In a breach of promise of marriage case the damages are really to be given as and when by way of compensation, though in England juries have been known to award exemplary damages. Apart, however, from the question of damages, the policy of the law requires that a betrothal agreement should not be lightly broken. The breach of a betrothal agreement furnishes a good cause of action in England and in India, if it is proved, and it is immaterial if so far there has been no known case filed by a Hindu girl for damages for breach of a betrothal agreement. If there is a breach, it is as much a breach against the intended wife as against the intended husband under the betrothal agreement." 26. Both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court recorded a concurrent finding that it is not change of girl, it is only change of mind of the 1st defendant. There is unanimity in their conclusion that defendants are putting forth an unacceptable justification to refuse to perform the marriage promise. They conclusively held that there is clear case of breach of promise to marry the plaintiff has been committed by the 1st defendant, he has been supported by his parents, namely, defendants 1 and 2. This categorical finding has been rendered by the Courts below on evidence on record. Unless there is perversity in it, this Court cannot interfere in it. So, we are not entering into this factual finding. The learned counsel for the respondents is also very fair enough to concede to this. 27. The first appellate Court held that the plaintiff is retaining 4 sovereigns of gold chain presented to her by the defendants at the time of betrothal, so, she cannot institute the suit, already defendants also spent towards the marriage expenses, so the 1st appellate Court adjusted these items as against suit claim. 28. It is true that the details as to presentation of gold chain has not been refuted by the plaintiff by way of a reply statement. 29. 28. It is true that the details as to presentation of gold chain has not been refuted by the plaintiff by way of a reply statement. 29. The stand of the plaintiff before the Court was that the chain was returned to the defendants on the date of betrothal for the purpose of adding Thali to it is against evidence and common sense and practice among Hindu marriages. 30. There is no counter claim, set off in the written statement of the defendants with regard to the said gold chain. Even in paragraph 11 of their written statement, the defendants themselves have stated that they are reserving their right for recovery of articles by way of a separate action. There was no issue as to this 4 sovereigns of gold chain in the Trial Court, nor any point for determination before the 1st appellate Court. In fact, in view of paragraph 11 of the written statement such an issue will not also arise at all. In such circumstances, on account of withholding of four sovereigns of gold chain, the 1st appellate Court denying her damages for loss of mental agony and reputation on account of breach of promise of marriage by the defendants is totally incorrect. 31. Now, we will go to assess the damages. It is quantification of damages. 32. Rs.50,000/- by way of damages has been demanded towards loss of mental agony and reputation. 33. Here it is not a question of money. No amount of money will give her solace to the damage caused to her name and fame by the defendants. In fact, Rs.50,000/-is only for vindication of her right, womanhood. So, the trial Court is right in awarding Rs.50,000/- under that head. 34. Towards betrothal expenses, Rs.25,000/- is claimed. 35. It has been submitted by the respondents/ defendants that no details has been given regarding the expenses and no document has been filed. This has also been pointed out by the 1st appellate Court to deny her any amount under this head. 36. Our common sense and common knowledge is unparallel to anything. They becomes so relevant because certain things cannot be weighed in gold scale. Certain things cannot be determined with mathematical precision. In those circumstances, some guessing is permitted. But, it should not be a wild guess. 37. 36. Our common sense and common knowledge is unparallel to anything. They becomes so relevant because certain things cannot be weighed in gold scale. Certain things cannot be determined with mathematical precision. In those circumstances, some guessing is permitted. But, it should not be a wild guess. 37. Normally, in auspicious occasions like betrothal, providing of rich, nice and good food will be expected. If it is not, the visitors may rebuke the family. In such occasion, good food will be a good omen. 38. In this case, about 50 people were stated to have graced the function held in the house of P.W.2 Sankaiah, who married the sister of plaintiff. 39. It has been pointed out by the leaned counsel for the defendants, in such circumstances, there is no occasion for the plaintiff's family to spend any money. 40. P.W.2 may give accommodation. He may not give food also, when especially plaintiff's mother and family members are alive, when generally a son-in-law tries to extract as much as possible from his father-in-law. Of course, there may be rare sons-in-law, who will spent for his father-in-law's family without any expectation. But, there is no material to show that P.W.2 came under this rare category. 41. Betrothal expenses cannot be restricted to food alone. It involves so many things. Let us not make any research into that. We also take into account that this event has taken place in 2004. Even the admission of the plaintiff is that only vegetarian food will be provided. For these items we cannot expect proof, if it is so, then we will be encouraging the parties to produce liars and forged bills into the Court. Here, we can use our common knowledge and experience. 42. In the facts and circumstances, Rs.25,000/- is higher on the side. So, we make it Rs.15,000/-towards reimbursement of betrothal expenses. 43. Thus, we answer the substantial questions of law as against the respondents. 44. Finally, this Second Appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of the trial Court are restored. The decree and judgment of the trial Court and the first appellate Courts are modified to the effect that the suit is decreed for Rs.65,000/-with 6% future interest from the date of filing of the suit. Rest of the suit claim is dismissed without cost. Parties will bear their respective cost throughout.