BIMLA DEVI Vs. SUNIL DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.75,750.00 in forma paupris on account of the price of dowry articles, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the "plaintiff" and respondents as the "defendants".

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the short question before this Court in the present case is whether the plaintiff would be entitled to the istridhan of her deceased daughter; or whether the defendants/husband and parents-in-law of the daughter of the plaintiff, would be entitled to the istridhan. Learned counsel submits that as per Sec. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, it is the appellant/plaintiff who would be entitled to the istridhan of her deceased daughter; and not her husband and in-laws. It is submitted that at the time of marriage, appellant and her family had given dowry articles worth Rs.75,750.00 which was taken by the defendant No.1/husband and his family members including his parents/defendants No.2 and 3 herein. On 29/9/1992, the appellant's daughter was murdered by the defendants by giving her severe beatings and sprinkling kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. She died on 5/10/1997 in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. After trial, defendant No.1/husband was sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the dowry articles as mentioned in the list attached with the plaint were misappropriated by the defendants for their own use. It is contended that the defendants have no right to these dowry articles as these form part of istridhan of deceased daughter of the appellant and were therefore, the exclusive property of the daughter of the plaintiff.