1. The question in issue is whether there has been a valid and legal divorce between plaintiff and second defendant, the District Judge finds in the affirmative.
2. The only point argued before us is whether the caste custom is valid, appellant's pleader contending that it is immoral, and, therefore, that the Courts will not recognize it. Exhibits A and B go to show that it has been recognized by the caste as an ancient and reasonable custom.
2. We do not think that the case of Uji v. Hathi Lalu 7 B.H.C.R. 133 is in point, since the question there was whether the caste could sanction a woman's re-marriage without a divorce, i.e., without a proceeding to which both husband and wife were parties. Here the finding is that there has been a divorce according to the custom of the potters in Tinnevelly.
3. The finding further is that divorce in this form is consistent with the 'original' customs of the potters, and, if this be so, the custom is sufficiently ancient. We do not see that it is immoral, since it does not ignore marriage as a legal institution, but provides a special mode by which it maybe dissolved. The fact that there is a money-payment does not make the custom immoral, and among the inferior castes similar customs are known to prevail.
4. The second appeal fails and we dismiss it with costs.