JUDGMENT
1. It is unnecessary to consider in this case whether Govindarazulu Narasimham v. Deverabhatla Venkatanarasayya 27 M. 206, is correctly decided. The money was borrowed for the purpose of the defendant’s marriage and the maintenance of, the family. It is found Rs. 600 was borrowed for the marriage and Rs. 150 for maintenance. The plaintiff made due enquiry, and the loan of Rs. 750 is justifiable. The learned Advocate-General does not press the claim as regards the sum of Rs. 250 which is alleged to have gone towards the discharge of Exhibit B. As regards Rs. 150 of the remainder, the fact that the whole of the amount borrowed for maintenance was not applied towards it does not affect the plaintiff’s right to recover the full sum lent for maintenance. The District Judge does not say that Rs. 600 was not spent on the marriage. Nor does he find that such a sum was in excess of the status of the defendant. We are unable to hold that the plaintiff cannot recover the entire sum lent for the marriage when it was not in excess of the defendant’s position in life. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the principal sum of Rs. 750 with compound interest at 15 as. 6 pies per cent, per mensem up to date fixed for payment and subsequent interest at 6 per cent, on the whole. We modify the decrees accordingly. Time for payment is extended to 3 months from this date.
2. Each party will pay and receive proportionate costs throughout.
