1. This application ought not, in my opinion to succeed. The suit was a suit for return of certain ornaments on the allegation that there had been a breach of contract of a promise of marriage. The case for the plaintiff was that many years before the suit his son whilst still an infant was betrothed to the daughter of one of the defendants also an infant. It was alleged that at the time of the betrothal ornaments valued at Rs. 394 were made over to the defendants for the girl, and it was agreed that if the marriage was subsequently not carried out when the children reached the age of maturity the ornaments were to be returned. The parties are Telis, and it was pleaded that this was also a customary law of the tribe. The suit was resisted on various grounds. The defendants raised the plea that the suit was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and relied upon Article 35 in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The Judge says that this article cannot be applied and I think he is right. The suit was not a suit for recovery of compensation for breach of contract for betrothal or promise of marriage; it was a suit for return of specific goods. The only other point pressed is that the Court below ought to have held that the ornaments were not made over to the defendants but were made over to the girl. I agree with the Judge of the Court below that in the circumstances the ornaments could not become the stridhan of the girl and I am satisfied that the defendants were liable to be sued for the return of the ornaments. I dismiss the application with costs.