JUDGMENT
Coutts, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages on breach of contract. The facts of the case are, that the plaintiff arranged to marry his daughter to the defendant, and it was agreed that the plaintiff should pay Rs. 1,500 in cash and Rs. 300 worth of articles to the defendant at the time of the Tilak ceremony. The cash and the articles were delivered in accordance with the agreement and it was arranged that the marriage should take place on the 23rd of May 1915, All necessary arrangements were made for the marriage but a week before the date fixed the defendant sent a message to say that the marriage would not take place. There was a subsequent definite refusal and, when the plaintiff demanded back his money and the articles that had been sent, only a portion was sent and according to the plaintiff Rs. 961 in cash and Rs. 44 as value of the articles remained unreturned. Rs. 1,000 on account of cash and ornaments and Rs. 513 for loss in connection with the marriage arrangements with interest at 6 per cent. per annum were claimed in this suit. The suit was decreed for Rs. 1,500 (?) and Rs. 513 as principal and half the interest claimed was also allowed making the total up to Rs. 1,891-5. 6. On appeal by the defendant to the District Judge the decision of the first Court has been upheld and it is against this decision that the present appeal las been Sled to this Court.
2. The first point argued in the appeal is that paragraph 6 of the plaint shows that a new contract was entered into subsequent to the original contract and that, accordingly, Section 63 of the Contrast Act will not apply. Paragraph 6 of the plaint runs as follow: “That, since in the month of Asarh 1322 Fasli, the defendant altogether refused to perform the marriage, the plaintiff several times sent word to the defendant and wanted back the money and articles taken by him at Faldan and Tilak ceremonies but the defendant always put off the matter, Ultimately, in the month of Cheyt 1323 Fasli when the plaintiff sent his family priest, Sisman Pandey, the defendant returned the articles and cash as specified in Schedule 2 below promising to pay the balance shortly.” If it had been that the defendant had returned the whole of the cash and articles it is possible that Section 63 of the contract Act might have applied, but it certainly does not apply in the present case. It is clear that the plaintiff never intended to accept the mere promise, that the defendant has not carried out his part of the bargain and that this being so, there is, in my opinion, not the slightest doubt that the parties are relegated to their original position, I am supported in this view by the decision in Manohur Koyal v. Thakur Das Naskar 15 C. 319 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 796.
3. The next point urged is, that the Court at Muzaffarpur had no jurisdiction. It is pointed cut by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the plaintiff resides in Muzaffarpur and that the defendant lives in Patna; that the agreement was entered into in Patna and that the money and articles were given at Patna; but as against this it has been admitted throughout the case that the performance of the contract was to be in Muzaffarpur and, consequently, Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure applies and the Muzaffarpur Court has jurisdiction.
4. The last point urged is, that the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as it comes within the purview of Article 36 of the Limitation Act. Article 36 runs as follows: For compensation for any malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance independent of contract and not her win especially provided for.” Obviously, the present case does not come within the provisions of this Article, It is purely and simply a suit for damages on breach of contract.
5. In the result, then, in my opinion, the appeal has been rightly decided and I would dismiss this appeal with costs. The cross-objection is not pressed and is dismissed. The Court fee has been paid,
John Bucknill, J.
6. I agree.