Appeals Nos 131 and 132 of 1960
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated April 4 1952 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No 816 of 1947 and No 83 of 1948
A V Yiswanatha Sastri R Ganapathy Iyer K Parasaran and G Gopalakrishnan for the appellants
K Bhimassankaran Durgabai Deshmukh A Narayana Swami and R Thiagarajan for the respondents 2 to 4
R Gopalakrishnan for respondent No 2 In C A No 132 of 1960
November 19
The judgment of the court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J
These appeals filed by a certificate issued by the High Court of judicature at Madras raise a question of Hindu Law pertaining to marriage in Asura form 
The material facts may be briefly stated  To appreciate the facts and the contentions of the parties the 247 following genealogy may be usefully extracted Muthusami Naicker    Senior wife Junior wife   Konda Bommu Naicker Kamayasami Naicker died 23101873 died 31
7 1901     Kandaswami Naicker Ponnuthayee Naicker died 31
7 1881 died 133 1938  Banmuga Valla  Konda Bommu Naicker  died 211 1901        Dorairaja Muthusami Kama Parama  alias 2nd Plff yasami sivam Married  Thanipuli 3rd Plff4th Plff Errammal  chami died 221933  1st Plff   Bangru Ammual  died 14121930    married also 8 other wise of whom the last to die were a Meenakshi Ammual died 56 1938 b Krishna Ammual died 10111938 c Vellayammal alias Chinathayammal died 25
1940
248 Thevaram is an ancient impartible zamindari in Madurai District
Shanumugavalla Konda Bommu Naicker was zamindar from 2381876 to 2011901
On his death on January 21 1901 Bangaru Ammal his daughter got his entire estate under the will executed by him
To discharge the debts incurred by her father Bangaru Ammal executed on March 13 1913 a mortgage of her properties for a sum of Rs 215000 in favour of one Chidambram Chettiar
On his death his son Veerappa Chettiar filed on April 16 of 1925 against Bangaru Ammal in the Subordinate judge s Court Dindigul for the recovery of a sum of Rs 5496338 7 being the balance of the amount due under the said mortgage
The suit was compromised and on July 28 1928 a compromise decree was passed therein
Under the compromise decree the mortgaged properties were divided into three Schedules A B  C and it was provided that if a sum of Rs 375000 was paid by July 31 1931 the mortgage must be deemed to have been fully discharged but in default the properties in Schedule A of the decree were to become the absolute properties of the plaintiff
B Schedule properties ie some of the pannai lands and the C Schedule properties ie those already alienated by Bangaru Ammal were released from the mortgage
One K V Ramasami Iyer the Manager of the estate was appointed Receiver of the A Schedule properties and he was directed to deposit the surplus income into court towards the payment of the amount due under the compromise decree
Before the expiry of the period prescribed under the said decree Bangaru Ammal died on December 14 1930 and her mother Errammal claiming to be her heir on the ground that Bangaru Ammal s marriage was held in Asura form  filed IA No 190 of 1931 in the court of the Subordinate judge Dindigul for directing the Receiver to hand over the estate to her
Veerappa Chettiar in his turn filed IANo170 of 1932 for 249 directing the Receiver to deliver possession of A Schedule properties on the ground that the term prescribed under the compromise decree had expired and the balance of the amount due under the decree was not paid to him
In the petition filed by Errammal she raised the question of the validity and the binding nature of the compromise decree on her
After elaborate inquiry on February 1 1933 the learned Subordinate judge though he held that the marriage of Bangaru Ammal was in Asura form  dismissed her petition for the reason that the mortgage was valid and binding on her and allowed the petition filed by Veerappa Chettiar directing the delivery of the possession of A Schedule properties to him
On February 2 1933 Veerappa Chettiar had taken delivery of A Schedule properties and on July 19 1933 he was registered as proprietor of Thevaram estate by the Collector of Madura
On February 2 1933 Errammal died executing a will dated January 30 1933 in favour of her nephew Thangachami Naicker
It may also be mentioned that three of the co widows of Shanmugavalla survived Errammal
They died one after another and the last of them Vellayammal passed away on May 2 1940
Thangachami Naicker along with one of the widows filed appeals to the High Court against the said judgments but those appeals were dismissed by the High Court on the ground that they were not maintainable
As Thangachami Naicker interfered with the right of Veerappa Chettiar with regard to certain tanks and water courses in Zamindari he filed 0
section 2 of 1934 in the Subordinate judge s court of Dindigul against Thanchami Naicker and obtained a decree declaring his right to the said tanks
The appeal filed by Thanchami Naicker against that decree was also dismissed with costs on April 10 1940
In execu tion of the decree for costs Veerappa Chettiar got the property alleged to be in possession of Thanchami 250 Naicker attached
One section Michael son of Thanchami Naicker objected to the attachment of the said property on the basis of a sale in his favour by the alleged reversioners to the estate of Bangaru Ammal
That petition was dismissed on August 23 1944
The said claimant section Michael filed 0
section No 52 of 1944 in the court of the Subordinate judge Dindigul for setting aside the said claim order
To that suit Veerappa Chettiar and Thangachami Naicker were made party defendants
On January 31 1945 the alleged reversioners to the estate of Bangaru Ammal filed 0
section 14 of 1945 in the Court of the Subordinate judge Dindigul against Veerappa Chettiar his younger brother and defendants 3  9 who were alleged to be the tenants in possession of some of the items of the plaint Schedule properties
The plaintiffs in that suit are the grandsons of one Kandaswamy Naicker shown in the genealogy a paternal uncle of Shanmugavalla Konda Bommu Naicker
They claimed that they are the reversioners to the estate of Bangaru Ammal on the ground that Bangaru Ammal was married in Asura form 
It is alleged in the plaint that succession opened in their favour when Vellayammal died on May 2 1940 and that the compromise decree passed against Bangaru Ammal was not binding on them and that in any view the property set out in Schedule C and C 1 attached to the plaint did not pass to Veerappa Chettiar under the said decree
The contesting defendants in both the suits pleaded that the marriage of Bangaru Ammal was not in Asura form  and therefore the plaintiffs in 0
section 52 of 1944 were not the reversioners to the estate of Bangaru Ammal that the compromise decree was binding on the estate and that C and C 1 Schedule properties also passed to the decree holder thereunder and that in any view the suit was barred by time
251 It is seen from the foregoing narration of facts that the same questions of fact and law arise in both the suits for the title of the plaintiffs in 0
section No 52 of 1944 was derived under a sale deed from the plaintiffs  in 0
section No 14 of 1945
Therefore the plaintiffs  claim in the former suit will stand or fall on the plaintiffs  title in the latter suit
For that reason both the suits were heard together by the Subordinate judge and appeals arising from his common judgment by the High Court
The learned Subordinate judge held on the evidence that the marriage of Bangaru Ammal with the Mannarkottai zamindar was in Asura form as Mannarkottai zamindar had spent Rs 300 to Rs 575 for Bangaru Ammal s marriage and that circumstance was in view of certain decisions of the High Court would make it an Asura marriage
He further held that the aforesaid compromise decree was binding on the plaintiffs
As regards C and C 1 Schedule properties lie held that they had passed to Veerappa Chettiar under the compromise decree as part of the Thevaram Zamindari and that the plaintiffs were not in possession within 12 years of the suit in regard to item 70 of the C Schedule
On those findings he dismissed OS No 14 of 1945 with costs
In OS 52 of 1944 he held that the plaintiff therein acquired a valid title as he purchased the land in dispute therein from the plaintiffs in the other suit who are the reversioners to the estate of Bangaru Ammal and that the decree in execution of which the said property was attached was not binding on the estate of said Bangaru Ammal
In that view he decreed the said suit
As against the decree passed in OS 52 of 1944 Veerappa Chettiar filed an appeal in the High Court of Madras being AS No 816 of 1947
As against decree in OS 14 of 1945 dismissing the 252 plaintiffs  suit they filed an appeal to the High Court being AS 83 of 1948
Veerappa Chettiar filed cross objections therein
Both the appeals were heard together by the High Court
The High Court held that in Bangaru Ammal s marriage the practice of giving Kambu or flour or what is called the taking of Mappetti millet flour box before the betrothal was followed and that the marriage expenses were entirely borne by the Mannarcottai Zamindar presumably in pursuance of the practice existing in the community or in pursuance of an arrangement between the parties and therefore the marriage was Asura
The High Court further held that under the compromise decree only Melwaram right in C and C 1 Schedule properties passed to Veerappa Chettiar but as there was no clear evidence as to who was in actual possession of the said lands and as the persons in actual occupation of the land were not impleaded in the suit it was necessary in the interest of the parties to reserve the right of the plaintiffs to recover possession of C and C I Schedule lands in an appropriate proceedings instituted for the purpose
In regard to item No 70 of C Schedule land the High Court agreed with the finding of the Subordinate judge
The High Court also negatived the plea of limitation with the result AS No 816 of 1947 was dismissed with costs and AS No 83 of 1948 subject to the said modification was dismissed with costs
Hence the appeals
Both the appeals were heard together as they raised common points
The arguments of Mr AV Viswanatha Sastri the counsel for the appellant may be summarised thus  The marriage of Bangaru Ammal with a Mannarcottai Zamindar was not held in Asura form and therefore the plaintiffs in OS 52 of 1944 being her father s uncle s grand children were not reversioners to her estate
According to Hindu Dharamshastras the main distinction between Brahma and Asura form of marriages is that while in the 253 former there is a gift of the bride in the latter there is a sale of the bride
Except a bare allegation in the plaints that the said marriage was held in Asura form the plaintiffs did not give any particulars or set tip any custom in the community to which the parties to the marriage belonged
They have adduced evidence to the effect that a sum of Rs 1000 was paid as parisam by the Mannarcottai Zamindar to the bride s father for taking the bride but both the courts having rightly held that the said payment was not established by the evidence erred in making out a case of a different consideration for the marriage
The first court held wrongly that the fact that Mannarcottai Zamindar spent Rs 300 to Rs 575for the marriage expenses would make it an asura marriage while the High Court went further and erroneously held that there was a general custom in the community to pay the bride s price by way of giving Kambu grain and Kambu flour at the time of the settlement of marriage and that for the bridegroom s party to bear the expenditure for celebrating the marriage and that in the case of Bangaru Ammal s marriage the said Kambu was given and that the expenditure for the marriage was incurred by the Mannarcottai Zamindar presumably in pursuance of the practice existing in the community or in pursuance of an arrangement between the parties
Apart from the fact that no such custom was pleaded there was no evidence to sustain the said custom
That apart the mere giving of Kambu as a ceremonial relic of the past or the bearing of the expenditure on the marriage wholly or partly by the bridegroom s party could not be a bride s price as contemplated by the Sastras for the bride s father in those events could not be said to have received any price for the bride
In short the learned counsel attacks both the legal and the factual findings arrived at by the High Court
The gist of the learned counsel for the Mr Bheemasankaran s contention may 254 be briefly stated thus According to Dharam Shastras there were eight forms of marriage in Hindu Law four approved and four unapproved
But as centuries rolled by most of them became obsolete and at present there are only two forms of marriage Brahmu and Asura
Whatever may have been their comparative merits in the bygone days they have now come to be recognized as two valid 1 forms of marriage that can be followed without any sense of inferiority by all the castes
Though in remote antiquity the Asura form of marriage night have involved a real sale transaction at present it would be enough to constitute such a marriage if a ritual form was observed indicating the consciousness of the community or the parties contracting the marriage that it was an Asura marriage
This consciousness may be indicated by the ceremonial giving of Kambu at the time of betrothal or by the bridegroom s party meeting the expenses wholly or substantially of the marriage
Thai apart in the present case there is clear evidence that the practice in the community to which Bangaru Ammal and her husband belonged that Kambu is given by the bridegroom s party to the bride s party at the time of betrothal and the bridegroom s party bears the expenditure of the marriage which clearly indicate that the bride s father or in his absence by the bride s relatives entitled to give her away in marriage get a clear benefit for giving the bride and further there is evidence that the said practice was followed in the case of Bangaru Ammal s marriage
What is more to constitute a Brahmu marriage there should be a Kanyadhan  but in this case it has been found that there was no Kanyadhan  and therefore if the marriage of Bangaru Ammal could not have been in Brahma form  it could have been only in the alternative form namely Asura form
Before we advert to the arguments advanced we would like to make some general observations
255 We are not concerned here with the relatives importance of the said two forms of marriages at the present day but only with the conditions laid down by Shastras for the said two forms of marriage and with a question as to which form was adopted in Bangaru Ammal s marriage
Nor are we concerned with a question whether the institution of marriage in Brahmu form is now maintained in its original purity
We are also in these appeals not concerned with any customary form of marriage but only with a marriage sanctioned by Hindu Law for no custom was pleaded in derogation of Hindu Law
But there may be a custom in a community not in derogation of the Hindu Law but in regard to the manner of complying with a condition laid down by Hindu Law
that is to say if the criterion for an Asura marriage was that there should be a sale of the bride there may be a custom in a community in regard to the manner of paying the consideration  for the sale
It may be mentioned that in this case the learned counsel for the respondents does not rely upon any custom even in the later sense but only on the practice obtaining in the community in support of the evidence that the said practice was followed in Bangaru Ammal s marriage
The main question therefore is what are the ingredients of an Asura form of marriage
As the Manu Samhita has always been treated by sages and commentators from the earliest time as being of a paramount authority let us look to it for guidance
The following verses from Manu Samhita as translated by Manmatha Nath Dutt Shastri read as follows CHAPTER III Verse 21 They different types of marriages are known as the Brahma Daiva A raha Prajapatya A sura Gandharva Rakshasa and Paisacha which forms the eighth
256 Verse 24 The four forms of marriage the seers have ordained as proper for Brahmanas  only the Rakshasa form as proper for Kshatriyas and the A sura form as proper for Vais yas and S udras
Verse 25 Thus out of these five forms of marriage three are lawful and two are sinful unlawful
Let a man never marry a wife either in the Pisacha or in the A sura form since these two forms are prohibited
Verse 27 The form of marriage in which well attired bride decorated with ornaments is given in marriage to an erudite good charactered bridegroom especially invited by the bride s father himself to receive her is called Brahma
Verse 31 The form in which the bridegroom on paying money to her father and to herself out of the promptings of his own desire receives the bride in marriage is called A sura
Verse 51  An erudite father of a girl shall not take anything by way of Sulka from her bridegroom
By taking a dowry out of greed he becomes the seller of his off spring
Verse 53 Even the acceptance of abovine pair by the father of the bride from the bridegroom is designated as a dowry by certain authorities the acceptance of 257 a dowry be it costly or be it of insignificant value constitutes the sale of the girl
Verse 54  A marriage in which the bride s relations do accept the dowry voluntarily presented by the bridegroom s father etc is no sale of the bride since such a present is but an adoration of the bride done out of love or affection
Verse 98 of Chapter IX Even a S udra must not take any price it
duty or pecuniary consideration for the hands of his daughter when giving her away in marriage
Such acceptance of money constitutes a sale of the girl in disguise
The gist of the verses is that before Manu Smriti came into existence the A sura form was considered to be proper for Vaishs and Sudras but it was prohibited for the Brahmins and Kashatriyas
But Manu was emphatic that the said form of marriage was sinful for all castes including the Shudras
There is no ambiguity in the verses in regard to the general prohibition to all castes  for Verse No 98 emphasizes that even a S udra must not take any price for the hand of his daughter when giving away in marriage
The next question is what is the criterion of an A sura marriage according to Manu
A contrast between the terminology in the definition of Brahma marriage and that of A sura marriage brings out clearly his intention
The following words stand out in the definitions
They are dana  giving Kanyapradanam  the taking of the bride Dravina  wealth dattava  after having given Saktitah  as much as he can Svacchandya  as according to his will
The word Apradana  is used in the 258 definition of A sura marriage in contradistinction to the word dana  in Brahmu form of marriage while a in the Brahmu form of marriage the father makes a gift of the bride in the A sura form the bridegroom takes the bride otherwise than by a gift
In the former the father gives the bride decorated with ornaments while in the latter the bridegroom takes the bride after giving wealth to the father of the bride and the bride
While in the former the father voluntarily gives the bride in the latter the bridegroom out of his own will pays as much money as he can to the father and takes his bride
The words Saktitah  and Svacchandya  imply that the payment is made because the bridegroom can and the girl is taken because he wills that is to say a bridegroom who seeks the hand of a bride takes her as he can afford to buy her from her father
The transaction is equated to that of a sale for all the ingredients of sale were present
If there is any ambiguity that is dispelled by Verse 51 and Verse 54
In Verse 51 Manu makes it clear that by taking a dowry out of greed the father becomes the seller of his off spring Sulka  means the taking of a gratuity or price
The expression dravina  in Verse 31 is clarified by the use of the word Sulka  in Verse 51
What is prohibited is Sulka or the price for the bride
Verse 54 brings out the distinction between Sulka  or dravina  paid by the bridegroom as a price for the bride and the dowry given for the bride as a present out of love or affection or in adoration of the bride
Verse 98 further empbasizes that what Manu prohibits is the sale of a bride for price
A sura marriage according to Manu is a transaction of sale in which the girl is sold for a price
Practically the same meaning though expressed in different phraseology is given by other Hindu Law givers
The following translations given by Max Muller in the Sacred Books of the East  of 259 the various sages may now be extracted Baudhayana text 1 II 20 7 If the bridegroom receives a maiden after gladdening the parents by money that is the rite of the Asuras asura  Verse 2  Now they quote also the following verses It is declared that a female who has been purchased for money is not a wife
She cannot assist as sacrifices offered to the Gods or the manes
Kasyapa has stated that she is a slave  Baudhayana Prasad Adhyaya 11 Kandika 21 Verse 3  Those wicked men who seduced by agreed give away a daughter for a fee who thus fall after death into a dreadful place of punishment and destroy their family down to the seventh generation
Moreover they will repeatedly die and be born again
All this is declared to happen if a fee is taken 
 Vasishtha Chapter I Verse 35 If after making a bargain with the father a suitor marries a damsel purchased for money that is called the Manusha rite  Narada Chapter XII Ver8e 42
When a price is asked for the bride by the father and taken by him it is the form termed Asura Gautama Chapter IV Verse 11
The form of marriage in which a bride is purchased for money is called the A suram  260 Vishnu Chapter XXIV Verse 24
If the damsel is sold to the bridegroom it is called an Asura marriage Yagngavalkya   The asura by largely giving of money  the Gandharva by mutual consent the Rakshasa by forcible taking by waging war and Paisacha by deceiving the girl  Translation of Srisachandra Vidyaamava  1918 Edition page 126  In the Mitakshara the said text is commented upon thus  lm15  The Asura marriage is that in which money is largely given to the father and others in exchange for the girl
Apastamba If the suitor pays money for his bride and marries her afterwards that marriage is called the Asura rite  Kautilya  Arthasastra Sulkadanat Asura  the word used is Sulka Medhatithi in his commentary on Verse 54 of Manu Samhita points out that the receipt of money or money s worth for the benefit of the girl Kanyarthe does not amount to her sale and is desirable as it tends to enhance her self esteem and also raises her in the estimation of others and concludes with the observation that receipt of a dowry for the girl kanyartham danagrahanam is prescribed by thus stating the good arising from it arthavadena  Vide at 772
Apte s Dictionary  page 239  Col III
Asura is explained thus  One of the eight forms of marriage in which the bridegroom purchase  the bride from her father or other paternal kinsmen  Manu 331 and Yagnayavalkya 161 are cited 261 The said sages and commentators accepted the view expressed by Manu and in effect described A sura marriage as the transaction where a bridegroom purchases a girl for a price paid to the father of the girl or to kinsmen who are en titled to give her in marriage
The distinction between the bride s price and the presents to the bride is also recognized
The learned judges of the High Court relying upon the text of Apasthamba observed that the payment to the bride s father is for the purpose of complying with Dharma and not as a consideration for an commercial transaction
The interpretation may explain away on Dharmic principles the sordid nature of the transaction but does not detract from its essential incidents
We therefore hold that A sura marriage is nothing more than a transaction of marriage whereunder a bridegroom takes a bride for the price paid by him to the bride s father or others entitled to give her and therefore in substance it is a sale of the bride
It is said that the incurring of the expenditure of the marriage by the bridegroom is also a consideration for giving the bride
In this context reliance is placed on the Law and Custom of Hindu Castes by Arthur Steel
This book was written in 1868
The author appears to have collected the laws and customs obtaining in the Presidency of Bombay and had compiled them for the purpose of convenience of reference
At page 24 the author says There are eight kinds of marriages recognized in the Sastras  1 Brahm where the charges are incurred solely by the girl s father x x x x x 5 Usoor where she is taken in exchange for wealth and married this species is peculiar in the Wys and Soodra castes BSMit See Munoo 32034
It is considered as Uscorwiwuha and stree soolk and the money if unpaid is an unlawful debt B 2 199
The definition of Asura by the author does not carry the matter further for it is consistent with that 262 given in the Hindu law Texts but what is relied upon is his definition of Brahmu marriage as one where charges are incurred solely by the girl s father
From the said definition a converse proposition is sought to be drawn viz  that marriage would be Asura marriage if the charges were incurred mainly by the bridegroom s father
Firstly the definition of Brahmu marriage by the learned Author does not conform with the definition of the said marriage by the lawgivers
Secondly it does not follow from the passage that if the bridegroom s father incurs the expenditure the marriage is an Asura marriage
If that be so the author would have stated in his definition of Asura marriage that such incurring of the expenditure would make a marriage an Asura marriage
This valuable compilation of the laws and customs of the day does not throw any light on the question now raised before us
Let us now see whether there is any merit in the contention that the concept of sale for a price has by progress of time lost its content and that at the present time a mere form of sale irrespective of a real benefit to the bride s father would meet the requirements of an Asura  marriage
No text or commentary taking that view has been cited to us
Indeed the case law on the subject does not countenance any such subsequent development
The earliest decision on the subject cited to us is that ofthe Divisional Bench of the Bombay High Court Jaikisondas Gopaldas vs Harkisondas Hulleshandas Green j defines the Asura marriage at page 13 The essential characteristic of the Asura form ofmarriage appears to be the giving of money or presents by the bridegroom or his family to the father or parental kinsmen of the bride or in tact a sale of the girl by her father or other relation having the disposal of her in marriage in 1 Bom
9 263 consideration of money or money s worth paid to them by the intended husband or his family  In Vijarangam and Damodhar vs Lakshuman and Lakshmi  1 West j 
gives in interesting background to the origin of the institution of the Asura marriage and observes Of the several Shastras called by the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case all agree that the giving and receiving of money for the bride is the distinctive mark of the Asura form of marriage
 In Muthu Aiyar vs Chidambara Aiyar the money was paid by the bridegroom s people to the bride s father to meet expenses of marriage
The Subordinate judge found on the evidence that the bride s father received the money for his own purposes and not for bride s benefit and therefore the marriage was an Asura one
The High Court in a short judgment accepted the finding and said
it being found that a money payment was made to Thailu s father we are not prepared to differ from the courts below in their opinion as to the nature of the marriage
 This decision is relied upon in support of the contention that where the bridegroom incurs the expenditure of the marriage such a marriage is Asura marriage
But this decision is not a considered one
The appeal being a second appeal the learned judges accepted the finding of fact given by the Subordinate Judge namely that the money payment was made to the bride s father and were not prepared to differ from it
The disinclination of the learned judges to interfere in the second appeal on a question of fact cannot throw any light on the point that has directly arisen before us
Chandavarkar J in Chunilal vs Surajram 3 accepted the aforesaid definition when he said Where the person who gives a girl in marriage received 1 1871 8 Born
F C Reports 244
2 3 Bom
264 money consideration for it the substance of the transaction makes it according to Hindu Law not a gift but a sale of the girl
The money received is what is called bride price and that is the essential element of the Asura form
The fact that the rites prescribed for the Brahmu form are gone through cannot take it out of that category if there was pecuniary benefit to the giver of the girl
The Hindu law givers one and all condemn such benefit and the Shastras regarding it as an ineradicable sin prescribe no penance for the sale of a bride
 The learned judge also accepted the presumption that every marriage under the Hindu Law is according to the Brahma form but it can be rebutted by evidence
In section Authikesavulu Chetty vs section Ramanujan Chetty  1 at the betrothal ceremony a married woman of the caste to which the parties belonged proceeded from the bridegroom s house to the house of the bride carrying certain presents consisting of cocoanuts betel and nut garlands black beads saffron red powder etc
in a tray
There was also a pagoda and a fanam in it
There was also an arrangement at that time that the bridegroom s father had to pay certain amount to the bride and the bride s father had also to give some jewels to the bridegroom
It was contended that the marriage was an Asura marriage
The learned judges said that the distinctive mark of the Asura marriage was the payment of money for the bride and that the payment of a pagoda and 2 12 annas could not have been intended to be the consideration for the bride where the bride s father spent thousands of rupees himself and gave presents of considerable value to the bride and the bridegroom
This decision therefore emphasises that mere payment of small amounts as a compliment to one of the parents cannot be treated as a consideration for the sale of the bride
It also lays down that all the circumstances of the case will have to be looked into to ascertain whether any amount was paid as price for the bride
1 Mad
265 A Divisional Bench of the Madras High Court in Gabrielnathaswmi vs Valliammai Ammal  1 negatived the contention that the mere fact that a bride s parents received what is known as parisam  it would lead to the conclusion that the marriage of the girl took place in Asura form and not in Brahma form
The learned judges observed It may be that parisum is a relic of what in old days was regarded as the price for the bride
x x x x 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
 They also reaffirmed the presumption under Hindu Law in the following words  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 
This decision deals with parisam  with which we are also concerned in these appeals
This is an authority for the proposition that the use of the word parisam  is not decisive of the question that it is a bride s price but that it must be established in each case whether the payment small or large in cash or kind is made as a bride s price i c as consideration for the bride
In Ratnathanni vs Somasundara Mudaliar 2 a sum of Rs 200 was paid to the bride s mother for the expenses of the marriage as a term of the contract of the marriage
On that finding Ramesam  J concluded that the payment was made for the benefit of the bride s mother as in the absence of the payment she would have had to find the amount in some other way by borrowing or pledging her jewels or other properties and therefore the marriage was in Asura form
The learned judge relied upon Steel s observation that the parents should incur the expenditure of the marriage in the Brahma form and presumably 1 AIR 1920 Mad 884
2 266 drew a contrary inference that if the bridegroom s party met the expenditure it would be an Asura marriage
The learned judge also relied upon that decision in Muthu Aiyar vs Chidambara Aiyar 1
Spencer J in a separate judgement agreed with him
As we have pointed out we do not see any justification in the Hindu Law texts in support of the view that the bearing of the expenditure of the marriage by the bridegroom is a test of an Asura marriage
The fact that the expenditure of the marriage is borne by bridegroom s party cannot in any sense of the term be a consideration given to the father for taking the bride
Ramesam J sitting singly in Samu Asari vs Anachi Ammal  2 restated his view in a more emphatic form
He observed It seems to me immaterial whether it is the whole of the expenses of the marriage or a substantial portion of it
To the extent the bride s father gets contribution of that kind from the bridegroom s father he benefits by it though he does not pocket it but he spends for the marriage 
At the same time the learned judge observed that under certain circumstances payments made to the bride s parents which are either small or relatively small having regard to the scale in which the expenses of the marriage are incurred do not make a marriage an Asura marriage
This decision therefore makes a distinction between courtesy presents given to the bride s parents and whole or substantial portion of the expenditure incurred by the bridegroom s father
While we agree that courtesy presents to the bride s parents cannot by themselves conceivably make a marriage an Asura one we find it difficult to hold that the incurring of expenditure by a bridegroom satisfies the test of consideration for the bride
In Kailasanatha Mudaliar vs Parasakthi Vadivanni  3 Varadachar J speaking for the 1 2 3 Mad
267 Court lays down the test of the Asura marriage in the following manner  The distinctive feature of the Asura form of marriage is the giving of money or money s worth to the bride s father for his benefit or as consideration for his giving the girl in marriage
 The learned judge distinguishes the case of Samu Asari vs Anachi Ammal  1 on the ground that there money was held to have been paid for the father s benefit though utilized by him to meet the expense of the marriage which he must have defrayed out of his own fund and points out also the distinction between payment to the father for his own benefit and payments to the bride received by kinsmen not for their own use
In that case a jewel was presented by the bride s father and placed on the bride s neck at the time of the betrothal ceremony as  parisam  and the value of the jewel was not even the subject of a bargain but merely left to the pleasure of the bridegroom s father
The learned judge observed that such a gift could in no sense be called bride s price
In Sivangalingam Pillai vs K V Ambalavana Pillai 2 the bride s father gave a large amount and also jewels to the bride and plaintiff s brother in law on behalf of the bridegroom gave the bride s father a present of Rs 1000 and a cloth worth Rs 65 
It was also agreed that all the expenses of the marriage should be borne by the bridegroom
It was contended that the said presents and the incurring of expenditure on the marriage was a consideration for the bride and therefore the marriage was in an Asura form
The Divisional Bench rejected the contention
Pandrang Row J observed at page 481 It is a well known fact that whatever the custom is the bridegroom and his people also spend a considerable sum of money in respect of the marriage whenever they can afford it
Such expenditure obviously does not convert the marriage which is otherwise in the Brahma form into one which is in 1 2 AIR 1938
479 268 the Asura form
 The learned judge proceeded to state at page 480 thus  So far as our Presidency is concerned all marriages among Hindus are presumed to be in the Brahma form unless it is proved that they were in the Asura form in other words it is incumbent on the party who alleges that a particular marriage was in the Asura form to prove that bride price was paid in respect of the marriage by the bridegroom or his people to the bride s father and the present given to the bride s father the learned judge remarked that this customary present would not necessarily amount to payment of bride s price
Abdur Rahman J added that if a party wishes to assert that the marriage was Asuric in form he must establish that some price was paid for the bride in pursuance of either of an express or implied contract to the bride s father or on his account
 This judgment we may say so with respect puts the principle on a correct legal basis and brings out in bold relief the distinction between bird s price on the one hand and the presents and the expenditure incurred in respect of the marriage by one or the other of the parties on the other hand Patanjali Sastri J in VS Velavutha Pandaram vs section Suryamurthi Pillai  1 approached the case if we may say so from a correct perspective
There a sum of Rs500 was paid by the bridegroom to the bride s father for the specific purpose of making jewels for the bride in pursuance of a stipulation for such gift as a condition of giving the girl in marriage
The learned judge held that the said payment was not bride s price and did not make the marriage an Asura marriage
The learned judge in passing referred to the case of Samu Asari vs Anachi Ammal  2 and observed as follows   As the father was benefitted by such contribution in that he was relieved to that extent from defraying such expenses 1 2 269 himself the marriage was one in the Asura form
This view has been criticised in the latest edition of Mayne s Hindu Law as not really warranted by the Hindu Law texts and the point may have to be reconsidered when it arises
 Patanjali Sastri J again considered this point in Second Appeal No 2272 of 1945
There on the occasion of the marriage one sovereign was given along with the other presents to the bride s father as Memmekkanoni
The question was whether the mere adoption of this customary form per se brought the marriage within the category of an Asura or unapproved marriage
The learned judge expressed the view that the payment of memekanom no longer signifies in substance and in truth consideration for the transfer of the girl but has survived as a token ceremonial payment forming part of the marriage ritual
The said judgment was confirmed by a Divisional Bench of the said High Court in Vedakummpprath Pillai Muthu appellant vs Kulathinkai Kuppan 
1 Balakrishna Ayyar J speaking for the Bench neatly summarised the law on the subject at page 804 thus  One essential feature of an Asura marriage the feature which makes the form objectionable is that the father of the bride receives a gratuity or fee for giving the girl in marriage
Ordinarily it would be expected of every decent and respectable father when he selects a husband for his daughter to make his selection uninfluenced by any considerations other than the welfare of the girl
But when he receives a payment for his personal benefit a very objectionable factor would influence his selection and it is clearly this which the ancient lawgivers took objection to and therefore relegated the form to the category we call disapproved 
When the father accepts money and allows his greed or avarice to sway his judgment he thereby converts what is intended to be a sacrament into a commercial transaction
 With respect we are in full agreement with the observations of the learned judge
Commenting upon the 1 270 argument built upon the payment of one sovereign to the bride s father the learned judge observed  In most though not necessarily in all cases the payment has lost all its original significance and survives only as a ritualistic form  it has become a ceremonial symbol devoid of any content or meaning or purpose
x x x x Now when a father gives such a large amount as stridhanam and receives one sovereign in compliance with traditional form it would be very wrong to say that he had been selling or mortgaging the girl and that he received the sovereign from greed or love of gain
 The foregoing discussion leads to the following results 
Under Hindu Law marriage is a sacrament and it is the religious duty of the father to give his daughter in marriage to a suitable person but if he receives a payment in cash or in kind as a consideration for giving his daughter in marriage he would be converting a sacrament into a commercial transaction
Brahma marriage satisfies the said test laid down by Hindu Law
But from Vedic times seven other forms of marriage were recognized based on custom and convenience
Asura form is one of the eight forms of marriage
The essence of the said marriage is the sale of a bride for a price and it is one of the unapproved forms of marriage prohibited by Manu for all the four castes of Hindu society
The vice of the said marriage lies in the receipt of the price by the bride s father or other persons entitled to give away the bride as a consideration for the bride
If the amount paid or the ornaments given is not the consideration for taking the bride but only given to the bride or even to the bride s father out of affection or in token of respect to them or to comply with a traditional or ritualistic form such payment does not make the marriage an A sura marriage
There is also nothing in the texts to indicate that the bearing 271 of the expenditure wholly or in part by the bridegroom or his parents is a condition or a criterion of such a marriage for in such a case the bride s father or others entitled to give her in marriage do not take any consideration for the marriage or any way benefit thereunder
The fact that the bridegroom s party bears the expenditure may be due to varied circumstances
Prestige vanity social custom the poverty or the disinclination of the bride s father or some of them may be the reasons for the incurring of expenditure by bridegroom s father on the marriage but the money so spent is not the price or consideration for the bride
Even in a case where the bride s father though rich is disinclined to spend a large amount on the marriage functions and allows the bridegroom to incur the whole or part of it it cannot be said that he has received any consideration or price for the bride
Though in such a case if the bridegroom s father had not incurred the said expenditure in whole or in part the bride s father might have to spend some money on that account such as indirect result could not be described as price or consideration for giving the bride
Shortly stated Asura marriage is a marriage where the bride s father or any other person entitled to give away the bride takes Sulka or price for giving the bride in marriage
The test is two fold There shall not only be a benefit to the father but that benefit shall form a consideration for the sale of the bride
When this element of consideration is absent such a marriage cannot be described as Asura marriage
As the Asura marriage does not comply with the strict standards of Hindu Law it is not only termed as an unapproved marriage but it has been consistently held that whenever a question arises whether a marriage is a Brahmu or Asura the presumption is that the marriage is in Brahma form and the burden is upon the person who asserts the con trary to prove that the marriage was either an Asura or any other form
272 With this background let us look at the facts of the case
Though in both the plaints it is stated that Bangaru Ammal had been married in Asura form no particulars are given but in the evidence the plaintiff s witnesses in one voice depose that the custom in the Rakambala caste to which Bangaru Ammal and her husband belonged is to give money in the shape of parisam  to the bride s father at the time of the betrothal
The witnesses who depose to Bangaru Ammal s marrage say that at the time of her betrothal a sum of 1000 was paid as  parisam 
Both the Courts did not accept this evidence and they held that it had not been established that a sum of Rs 1000 was paid as parisam  at the time of the betrothal of Bangaru Ammal
This finding is not attacked before us
It is argued that the evidence discloses that there is a practice in the said caste to give Kambu as IT parisam  to the bride s father as a bride s price and the said practice supports the evidence that in the case of the marriage of Bangaru Ammal also such a parisam  was paid as consideration for the marriage
On the question of the said alleged practice the evidence does not support it
P W I to P W 10 depose
that parisam  is paid in cash for marriages in their community varying from Rs 150 to Rs 1000 
This evidence has been rightly  disbelieved by both the courts
The evidence does not bear out the case of giving of parisam  in Kambu
Some of the witnesses also depose to the payment of Rs 1000 as parisam  at Bangaru Ammal s marriage but that was not accepted by the courts
The evidence destroys the case that parisam  was paid at her marriage in Kambu
No witness examined in the two cases says that Kambu is paid at the marriages of the members of the community or was paid at the time of Bangaru Ammal s marriage as a consideration for the marriage but it is said that the witnesses who had been 273 examined in the earlier suit whose evidence has been marked by consent in the present case deposes to that fact
Errammal the mother of Bangaru Ammal whose evidence is marked as P 11 R deposes that when Thevaram Zamindar married her the parisam  was only Rs 1000 and that when her daughter was married the parisam  was also Rs 1000 
In cross examination she says that according to the custom of the community it is the practice to bring a mapelli for the nischithartham betrothal function and it is customary also to bring cumbu and flour at the time of the marriage and sprinkle it in the marriage hall
This evidence indicates that the parisam  is only given in cash but Kambu is brought at the time of the marriage and sprinkled in the marriage hall presumably for the purpose of purification
This evidence does not show that Kambu is given as parisam  for taking the bride
Sermalai Naicker who gave evidence in an earlier suit which is marked as P 11 a belongs to Rajakambala caste
In his chief examination he says that he paid Rs 200 as parisam  at the time of the marriage and paid Rs 300 as parisam  for the marriage of his son and received Rs 200 as parisam  for the marriage of his daughter
In cross examination he says that on the betrothal day only one kalam of cumbu and cash are given to the bride s party and that the Kambu is used by the bride s people and that at the time of the marriage 3 or 4 marakkals of cumbu are again brought which is thrown over the bride and the bridegroom byway of blessing
He adds that throwing of the kambu is a ritual in marriage ceremonies and that Kambu and cash are called Parisam 
This evidence brings out the distinction between cash paid as the Parisam  and Kambu brought to conform with the traditional ritual
274 RW 3 in the earlier suit whose evidence is marked as D 317 says that he was a guru of the Rajakambala caste and that he performed the marriage of Moolipatti zamindar
He further says that Kambu is taken by the bridegroom s party to the bride s house when the betrothal takes place and that seven pieces of jaggery a cloth etc are also taken and that no money is given in the caste
We do not see how this evidence supports the practice of paying kambu as parisam 
indeed his evidence shows that Kambu is taken only as a part of the ritual and he is definite that no parisam  is paid in the caste
Ramasami Naicker Zamindar of Ammaianaickoor
was examined in the previous suit and his evidence is marked as D 416
He is definite in the chief examination that no parisam  is paid in his community
He says that it is rather undignified to receive Parisam  and that he has not seen any parisam paid in his caste
Whether this witness is speaking truth or not his evidence does not support the plaintiff
From the aforesaid evidence it is not possible to hold that either there is a practice in the Rajakambala family to give Kambu as parisam  for the bride or kambu was paid as parisam  at the time of the betrothal ceremony in connection with Bangaru Ammal s marriage
Reliance is placed upon Nelson s Manual of the Madhura Country published in 1865
At page 82 of Part II in that Manual the following passage appears  After this the price of the bride which consists usually of 7 kalams of kambu grain is solemnly carried under a canopy of white cloth towards the house of the bride s father 275 its approach being heralded by music and dancing
The procession is met by the friends of the bride who receive the price and allege together to the bride s house
 Similarly in Thurston s Castes and Tribes of Southern India published in 1902 in Volume VII under the heading Thotti Naickers  at page 192 the following passage is given The bride price is 7 kalams of Kambu and the couple may cat only this grain and horsegram until the wedding is over
 The evidence adduced in this case does not support the said statement
Even if those formalities are observed they are only the relics of the past
That practice represents only a symbolic ritual which
has no bearing upon the reality of the situation
Indeed the witnesses in the present case realizing the ritualistic character of the said observances seek to base the case of the Plaintiffs on a more solid foundation but have miserably failed in their attempt
These passage s therefore do not help the plaintiffs
The next question is whether the expenditure for the marriage was incurred by the bridegroom s party i e by the Mannarcottai Zamindar
The learned Subordinate judge held on the evidence that Thevaram Zamindar spent a large amount of money for the marriage but the Mannarcottai Zamindar also spent a sum of Rs 300 or Rs 575 for the marriage expenses
He expressed the view that if the matter was res integra he would have held that the incurring of such an expenditure by the bridegroom s party would not have made the marriage
an Asura marriage but felt bound by some of the decisions 276 of the Madras High Court to come to the opposite conclusion
The learned judges of the High Court came to the conclusion that the marriage expenses in their entirety were borne by the Mannarcottai Zamindar and it must have been either in pursuance of the custom or arrangement among the community
The evidence as regards the custom of the bride groom s party incurring the expenses of the marriage is unconvinc ing
Indeed the learned counsel for the respondent does not rely upon custom but he prefers to base his case on the finding of the High Court that the entire marriage expenditure was incurred by the Mannarcottai zamindar
Let us now consider the evidence in this regard in some detail
PW 1 says in his evidence that Bangaru Ammal was the only child of the Thevaram Zamindar that he was very affectionate to her and that he spent heavily for the marriage though he was not able to say how much he spent
P W 4 also says that Thevaram Zamindar gave her lot of jewels and finally gave her his entire estate
The evidence that Thevaram Zamindar spent large amounts on the marriage and gave lot of jewels to Bangaru Ammal must be true for even in 1895 when the marriage of Bangaru Ammal took place it is inconceivable that the marriage would have been celebrated with a few hundred rupees that was given by the Mannarcottai zamindar
He must have spent much larger amount than that consistent with his status and position in life and particularly when he was celebrating the marriage of his only daughter
Now coming to the documentary evidence in support of the contention that Mannarcottai Zamindar met the entire expenditure the respondents relied upon P  P and P is a letter dated August 8 1885 written by persons representing the Mannarcottai zamindar to the 277 Thevaram Zamindar office
Therein he stated You should soon get ready there all the materials and samans for the shed and Panthal  in connection with muhurtham
We will start and come without fail
This letter does not show that Mannarcottai Zamindar gave the money for the materials and samans for the said Panthal 
It was only an intima tion that everything should be made ready for the marriage as Mannarcottai people would be coming there without fail
Exhibit P 23 is the account of expenditure incurred on Bangammal s marriage from 191895 to 591895
It is said that it represents the amount spent on behalf of Mannarcottai zamindar and the amount recouped from him
The document is not very clear
The account does not appear to represent the entire expenditure incurred at the time of marriage because the entry about charges for pounding 50 kalams of paddy shows that 50 kalams of paddy must have been supplied from Thevaram stores and there is nothing on the account to show that 50 kalams were purchased on Mannarcottai account
Be that as it may this account only shows that Mannarcottai zamindar paid about Rs 300 but the learned counsel for the respondents argued relying upon exhibit P 27 that even the balance of Rs 29514in exhibit P 23 shown as the excess amount spent by Thevaram Estate was paid off by the Mannarcottai zamindar to the Thevaram Zamindar
Exhibit P 27 is an entry dated September 30 1885 in the account book of Thevaram Zamindar
It show that the Maha raja meaning Thevaram Zamindar gave to Thevaram office Rs 290
It does not establish the respondent s version
The only merit of the contention is that the two figures approximate each other
If that figure represents the amount paid by Mannarcottai Zamindar to Thevaram in full discharge of the amount due from the former to the latter the entry would have run to the effect that the balance of the amount due from Mannarcottai under Exp23 was paid and it would have been credited in Mannarcottai 278 account
It may have been that the sum of Rs 290was the balance out of the amount that Thevaram Zamindar took with him when he went to Mannarcottai for meeting his expenditure
The other accounts P 25 and P 26 filed in the case are neither full nor clear and no definite conclusion could be arrived at on the basis of the said account
We therefore hold on the evidence and probabilities that Thevaram Zamindar had spent large amounts in connection with the marriage and Mannarcottai zamindar spent only about Rs 300 in connection with the said marriage
Such a finding does not bring the marriage within the definition of Asura marriage as explained by us
earlier
The expenditure incurred by the bridgegroom s party was not and could not have been the consideration for the Thevaram Zamindar giving his daughter in marriage
It is contended that the High Court found that there was no Kanyadhan  at the time of the Bangaru Ammal s marriage and as Kanyadhan  was necessary ingredient of Brahmu marriage Bangaru Ammal could not have been married in that form
The High Court relying upon the evidence of Veluchami Naicker who is stated to be the Guru of the caste held that Kanyadhan  had not been observed in Bangaru Ammal s marriage
The learned counsel for the appellant contests the correctness of the finding and he relies upon some invitations in support of his contention that Kanyadhan  was observed in Bangaru Ammal s marriage but the documents are not clear on the point
The Guru only narrates some of the ceremonies held in marriages in the community but he does not expressly state that the ceremony of Kanyadhan  was not observed at Bangaru Ammal s marriage
In this state of evidence the presumption in
Hindu Law that the marriage was performed in Brahmu form must be invoked
As we have pointed out under the Hindu Law whether a marriage was in Brahmu form or Asura form the Court will presume 279 even where the parties are Shudras that it was in the Brahmu form
Further where it is proved that the marriage was performed in fact the Court will also presume that the necessary ceremonies have been performed
See Mauji Lal vs Chandrabati Kumari 1
This presumption has not been rebutted in this case
That apart the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents mixes up an essential ingredient of the Brahmu marriage namely the gift of the girl to the bridegroom with a particular form of ritual adopted for making such a gift
In both forms of marriages a girl is given by father or in his absence by any other person entitled to give away the girl to the bridegroom
In the case of Brahmu marriage it takes the form of a gift while in the case of Asura marriage as price is paid by the bridegroom it takes the form of a sale
As we have held that in Bangaru Ammal s marriage no consideration passed from the bridegroom to the bride s father the father must be held to have made a gift of the girl to the bridegroom
To put in other words there was Kanyadhan  in Bangaru Ammal s marriage
We therefore reject this contention
Lastly reliance is placed on the conduct of the appellant in not questioning the correctness of the finding given by the learned Subordinate judge in his application for delivery that the marriage was in Asura form
The learned counsel for the appellant sought to explain his conduct but in our opinion nothing turns upon it
If the marriage was not in Asura form as we held it was not the conduct of the appellant could not possibly make it an Asura marriage
In this view it is not necessary to give opinion on the other questions raised in the appeals
In the result the decrees of the High Court are set aside and both the suits are dismissed with costs throughout
One hearing fee
Appeals allowed 1 1911 LR 38 IA122


Summary:
The main question involved in both the appeals was whether the marriage of Bangaru Ammal was in Asura form or in Brahma form
The contention of the appellant was that it was not in Asura form
Except a bare allegation in the plaint that the said marriage was held in Asura form the plaintiffs did not give any particulars or set up any custom in the community to which the parties to the marriage belonged
They had given evidence that a sum of Rs 1000 was paid as Parisam  to the father of bride but that evidence had been rejected by both the courts
Respondents pointed out to the giving of Kambu by bridegroom s party to the bride s party at the time of betrothal and expenditure of Rs 300 by bridegroom s party in connection with the marriage of Bangaru Ammal and maintained that it was Asura marriage
Held that the marriage of Bangaru Ammal was not in Asura form but in Brahma form
There was nothing to show that there was a practice in the family to give Kambu as Parisam for the bride or Kambu was paid as parisam  at the time of the betrothal ceremony in connection with the marriage of Bangaru Ammal
The father of the bride had spent large amounts and the bridegroom s party had spent only about Rs 300 in connection with the said marriage
The expenditure incurred by the bridegroom s party was not and could not have been the consideration for the father giving his daughter in marriage
There is a presumption in Hindu Law that every Hindu marriage is in Brahma form and that pre sumption has not been rebutted in this case
The court was entitled to presume that the necessary ceremony of Kanyadan must have been performed
As no consideration passed from the bridegroom to the father of the bride the father must be held to have made a gift of the girl to the bridegroom
245 The essence of the Asura marriage is the sale of a bride for a price and it is one of the unapproved forms of marriage prohibited by Manu for all the four castes of Hindu society
The vice of the said marriage lies in the receipt of the price by the bride s father or other persons entitled to give away the bride as a consideration for the bride
If the amount paid or the ornament given is not the consideration for taking the bride but only given to the bride or even to the bride s father out of affection or in token of respect to them or to comply with a traditional or ritualistic form such payment does not make the marriage an Asura marriage
There is also nothing in the texts to indicate that the bearing of the expenditure wholly or in part by the bridegroom or his parents is a condition or a criterion of such a marriage for in such a case the bride s father or others entitled to give her in marriage do not take any consideration for the marriage or in any way benefit thereunder
The fact that the bridgeroom s party bears the expenditure may be due to varied circumstances
Prestige vanity social custom the poverty or the disinclination of the bride s father or some of them may be the reasons for the incurring of expenditure by bridegroom s father on the marriage but the money so spent is not the price or consideration for the bride
Even in a case where the bride s father though rich is disinclined to spend a large amount on the marriage functions and allows the bridegroom to incur the whole or part of it it cannot be said that he has received any consideration or price for the bride
Though in such a case if the bridegroom s father had not incurred the said expenditure in whole or in part the bride s father might have to spend some money on that account such an indirect result could not be described as price or consideration for giving the bride
Asura marriage is a marriage where the bride s father or any other person entitled to give away the bride takes Sulka or price for giving the bride in marriage
The test is two fold
There shall not only be a benefit to the father but that benefit shall form a consideration for the sale of the bride
When this element of consideration is absent such a marriage cannot be described as Asura marriage
Jaikisondas Gopaldas vs Harikisandas Hulleshandas Born
9 Vijarangam vs Lakshman 1871 8 Born
H C Report
244 Muthu Aiyar vs Chidambara Aiyar  Chunilal vs Surajram 1909 I LR 33 Born
433 section Authikesayulu Chetty vs section Ramanvjan Chetty 1909 1
L R  Gabrielnathaswami vs Valliammai Ammal A 1
R  Ratnathanni vs Somasundara 246 Mudaliar  Samu Asari vs Anachi Ammal  Kailasanath Mudaliar vs Parasakthti Vadivanni Mad 488 Sivangalingam Pillai vs K V Ambalayana Pillai A 1
R  V section Velavutha Pandaram vs section Suryamurthi Pillai 1941 2 M L J 770 and Vedakummapprath Pillai vs Kulathinkai Kuppan  referred to