1. The finding of the learned District Judge is that both the plaintiff and the defendant are Byragis. As explained in the case of Adwaita Das v. Lalit Mohan Mohanti : AIR1930Cal57 , the Byragi sect is one to which the members of the various castes--Brahmins Sudras, Vaisyas and Kshatriyas--all may be admitted. There are no special ceremonies for such admission and once a person becomes a Byragi, he ceases to belong to the caste to which he originally belonged. Cuming and Pearson, JJ., dealing with a ease of Byragis in the case just referred to say this:
The presumption is always in favour of the legality of a marriage and it has not been shown to my satisfaction that a formal admittance to the sect is a necessary preliminary on the part of the woman to constitute a legal marriage among the Byragis.
They also held that the marriage of a Byragi with a female of another sect cannot be annulled and that it cannot be held to be invalid. They referred to an earlier case where it was held that a Byragi may marry an agriculturist woman and that the minor restrictions of Hindu law as to the classes with which a Byragi may or may not marry cannot with propriety be applied in the absence of proof of special custom. They say:
Further bearing in mind that the Byragi as a sect appears to repudiate ceremonies and forms as much as possible this would be probably unlikely...Strictly speaking a Byragi is vowed to a life of celibacy though that does not necessarily make the marriage illegal. Sir Guroo Das Banerji in his Tagore Lectures (p. 249), said that owing to their belief in the inefficacy of ritual observances choice in matrimony among the Byragis is very little fettered.
In this case having regard to the fact that both the plaintiff and the defendant are Byragis, the further question whether a marriage of a male belonging to a higher caste with a woman of a lower caste is valid or not does not arise.
2. It is argued by Mr. Viswanatha Aiyar that the finding that the plaintiff was a Byragi is not based upon any evidence. The plaintiff describes herself as a Byragi in the plaint. In the written statement beyond stating that she was the offspring of. a Byragi male with a Sudra woman, there is no statement made that she is not a Byragi. What exactly are the rules governing : AIR1930Cal57 the question whether a particular person is or is not a Byragi are not stated and it is not clear that the daughter of a Byragi by a Sudra woman could not be a Bvragi herself. When a plaintiff describes herself as a Byragi and that statement is not denied by the defendant, it is enough to sustain the finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff also is a Byragi.
3. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
4. Leave refused.