MUMTAZ BEGUM Vs. AHMED KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant The appeal arises outof a suit O.S.No. 19 of 1982 filed by the plaintiff for a decree against the person and properties of the defendants and to direct the defendants 1 to 3 to pay the value of the suit schedule Zahez articles Chadava or return the same articles as detailed in the suit schedule including the return of the Scooter 150 Bajaj bearing No. ATX 8325 or its value prevailing in the marketi.e.Rs.l5,000/-and to direct the defendants 1 to 3 to pay the Mehar amount of Rs. 5,500/- and two Dinar-E-Surque or its equivalent value of two tulaspure gold at Rs.1,950/- per tula and for awarding costs with interest at 12% per annum.

(2.) The averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows: The plaintiff and the 1st defendant were married on 19-11-1978 as per Muslim personal law at Kothagudem. Defendants 2 and 3 are the father and mother of defendant No.1. The mehar of the plaintiff was fixed at Rs. 5,500/- with two Dinar Surque (1 dinar is equivalent to 1 tula of pure gold). On the occasion of the marriage, the plaintiff's parents gave suit schedule Zahez articles including a scooter bearing Model No. 1150/ATX 8325, gold and silver ornaments, grocery, cutlery, furniture, bedding, wearing cloths etc. On the occasion of marriage, the 1st defendant has given 7 tulas of necklace as "Chadava" i.e. gift, which has become the property of the plaintiff being a gift given on the occasion of the marriage. Since the plaintiff was meted with ill-treatment by the parents of the 1st defendant, they are living separately. The plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to return all the suit schedule zahez articles and chadava articles besides mehar amount. Since the 1st defendant did not return them, she issued a lawyer's notice on 12-3-1982. The 1st defendant issued a reply stating that he had given talaq to the plaintiff which had become effective from the date of receipt on 27-3-1982. Hence this suit for recovery of suit schedule Zahez and Chadava articles, Mehar amount and 4 tulas of gold ornaments snatched from the plaintiff's person on 21-2-1982 during her last visit to the house of defendants 1 to 3 and the scooter.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that the Jahez list submitted by the plaintiff does not speak the name of the donor and donee. The plaintiff cannot ask for the return of the gifts alleged to have been given to the 1st defendant. The Jahez articles given by the plaintiff's parents to the 1st defendant or his guardian are irrevocable gifts. He admitted that the 3rd defendant gave gold chain but not as chadava gift to the plaintiff. It does not become the property of the plaintiff. He denied that he kept the jahez articles and the gold chain alleged 'chadava' with him. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover the jahez articles and the gold chain which was given to her as chadavs and the scooter.