AL KR AL KARUPPIAH ALIAS MUTHU A MUTHUPATTINAM VILLAGE ATHANGUDI SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT Vs. KR NACHAMMAI ALIAS KAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Jaichandren, J. Defendant is the appellant against the confirming judgment. Plaintiffs / Respondents filed O. S. No. 61 of 1985 for directing the present appellant (Defendant) to deliver all jewels and items described in schedules A and B, in default to pay a sum of Rs. 61,280/- as the market value of such movable properties with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation and for declaration that the amount in Indian Bank, karaikudi in Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 78/fd/c. 587517 and in Indian Overseas bank, Attangudi in Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 293675, belongs to Plaintiff No. 1 exclusively as Sridhanam amount, and that she is entitled to realise the same from the said Banks, and for arrears maintenance of Rs. 21,600/- for three years at the rate of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 200/- per month, respectively.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is as follows: - THE marriage between the first plaintiff and the defendant was celebrated on 14. 5. 1973, and the second plaintiff is their only son. THE defendant is the maternal uncle of the first plaintiff. He had been adopted by his mother' ; s eldest sister. After the marriage, the first plaintiff and the defendant were living in the adopted mother' ; s house at athangudi. Since the defendant was compelling the first plaintiff to persuade the adoptive mother-in-law to part with considerable amounts of money, the first plaintiff contacted her own father, who in turn sought intervention and mediation of'pangalis'of the respondent' ; s adoptive mother's family. On intervention of close relations, the adoptive mother was advised to give Rs. 19,000/-, which was received and acknowledged by the defendant. It has been stated that the defendant' ; s natural father had presented Rs. 10,501/- as Sridhanam, besides other valuables, as per the caste custom, to the first plaintiff and as per the custom of Nattukottai Chettiar community the amount has been invested in a joint deposit in the name of the defendant and his wife. Subsequently, the defendant had got an employment in a coffee estate and the plaintiffs had joined him at Coorg and at that time, as per the advise, the jewelleries of the first plaintiff were taken by the defendant for being kept in a locker under safe custody. THEreafter, the defendant had insisted that the first plaintiff should bring back certain gold ornaments and to give them to the defendant. THE defendant had also insisted that the fixed deposit amount should also be handed over to him. Accordingly, the first plaintiff had to comply with the directions of her husband. Subsequently, the differences between the two grew and the defendant had deserted the first plaintiff. It has been further stated that the defendant, at that stage, had filed O. P. No. 9/80 seeking for divorce and the same had been dismissed. However, the defendant had married another girl. On the basis of these allegations, the plaintiffs sought for maintenance and also for return of the jewelleries and other movable properties described in A and B schedules, including the money. THE defendant had filed a written statement denying the allegations. He had also denied the taking of the jewelleries.

(3.) WHETHER the first defendant is a trustee is custody of the jewellery?