MANJIT KAUR Vs. INDERJEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-Manjit Kaur filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/-. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- with future interest @ 6% per annum on the decretal amount from the defendants by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional Civil Judge in paras 1 to 3 of its judgment, read as under:- " 1. The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized on 29.3.2001 with Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate son of Teja Singh defendant no.1 at Mansa through Anand Karaj ceremony. At the time of marriage, the defendants demanded Rs.8 lacs from the parents of the plaintiff and the parents of the plaintiff and relatives were spent Rs.8 lacs at her marriage. On 23.3.2001 before the marriage, Gurdev Singh father of plaitniff, Ram Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate Sardul Singh Master Bareta, Sukhwinder Singh mediator and Jangir Singh, brother in law of the plaintiff went to village Bhawa and gave Rs. 3 lacs to the defendants and deceased Sukhwinder Singh, in cash, at the asking of defendants. Out of the abovesaid amount of Rs. 3 lacs, the defendants and deceased Sukhwinder Singh got deposited a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- with Kewal Krishan commission agent resident of Ratia for safe custody and Rs.40,000/- were kept by them for their domestic use. It is further alleged that at the time of marriage, the parents and relatives of plaintiff gave iron box worth Rs.3000/- almirah worth Rs.4000/- double bed worth Rs.8000/-, brief case worth Rs.1200/-, 11 Darish wroth Rs.6500/- dressing table worth Rs.3500/-, 10 quilts worth Rs.8000/-, 10 mattresses worth Rs.8000/-, 21 bed sheets worth Rs.8000/-, 11 cotton blankets worth Rs.4000/-, 24 suits worth Rs.25000/-, 11 woolen sweaters worth Rs.2000/-, two shawls worth Rs.1500/, four pairs of shoes worth Rs.1500/- , 90 utensils worth Rs.3000/- mixer worth Rs.900/- dinner set worth Rs.900/- gas cylinder along with stove worth Rs.2500/-, 5 shawls worth Rs.2500/-, 8 cotton blankets worth Rs.2500/-, 3 suits worth Rs.1500/-, two blankets worth Rs.2000/-, totaling amount of Rs.100000/- gold jewellery weighing 11-1/2 tolas which includes four bangles weighing 4 tolas, 3 rings weighing 1.5. tola, one necklace weighing 2 tolas, one pair of ear rings weighing 1 tola, one chain weighing 2 tolas, one Tikka weighing 1 tola, in the shape of dowry and 4 tolas of gold jewellery was given by the defendants to the plaintiff. The total value of gold jewellery is amounting to Rs.100000/-. All the above articles and cash amount was Istridhan of the plaintiff, which the defendants took to their village after loading the same in the truck, which is under the possession of the defendants. It is further averred that after the marriage, the plaintiff resided at village Bhawa with Sukhwinder Singh as his wife. The defendants were compelling her husband Sukhwinder Singh to bring back Rs. 3 lacs, which were given by the parents of the plaintiff to the defendants and the same were deposited with Kewal Krishan commission agent. But her husband was not willing to bring back the said amount. Due to this matter, a dispute arose between Sukhwinder and defendants. To end the matter, her husband Sukhwinder Singh along with plaintiff started residing at Bareta in the Chobara of Girdhari Lal as tenant. But the defendants remained continue to harass Sukhwinder Singh and were compelling him to bring back the said amount from the commission agent. Due to humiliating from the hands of defendants, Sukhwinder Singh consumed pesticide on 29.7.2001 and lost his life. The reason behind the death of her husband Sukhwinder Singh are defendants and Jaspal Kaur wife of Iqbal Singh, residents of Bhawa, The plaintiff had filed a complaint u/s 306 IPC against the defendants and Jaspal Kaur and the accused were summoned by the Court and the said complaint is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. After the death of her husband, the plaintiff asked defendants to return back her istaridhan amounting to Rs. 2 lacs and Rs. 3 lacs (Total Rs. 5 lacs) which were given in cash to the defendants and the defendants asked her that they will return the abovesaid amount. On 15.8.2001 after the death of her husband, the defendants received the interest on the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- from Kewal Krishan commission agent fraudulently. Thereafter, they refused to return back her istridhan and cash amount. She issued a notice dated 9.12.2003 to the defendants through her counsel. Iqbal Singh had received the notice. Iqbal Singh had given reply to the said notice, in which he alleged that a complaint U/s 302 IPC is filed against the plaintiff. Despite the notice, the defendants did not return back the dowry articles amounting to Rs.2 lacs and cash amount Rs. 3 lacs. A week before filing of this suit, the defendants flatly refused the return back her istridhan amounting to Rs.2 lacs and cash amount of Rs. 3 lacs. The cause of action arose to the plaintiff on 29.7.2001 on the date of death of her husband Sukhwinder Singh, on 15.8.2001 on refusal of returning back of Rs. 2,60,000/-, The plaintiff prayed for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- with costs 2.Upon notice, the defendants filed written statement raising legal objections that the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file this suit; the suit is beyond limitation; the suit is filed on wrong facts in order to harass the defendants and therefore, the defendants are entitled to special costs. On merits, the defendants alleged that the marriage of the plaintiff and Sukhwinder Singh was solemnized on 29.3.2001. The parents of the plaintiff were not in position to spend Rs. 8 lacs on the marriage of the plaintiff. The marriage was simple. It is denied that the amount of Rs.3 lacs was given to Sukhwinder Singh on 23.3.2001 before marriage. It is also denied that the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- were deposited with Kewal Krishan commission agent and Rs.40,000/- were kept for domestic use. The plaintiff is an accused in case U/s 302 IPC.

(3.) Ram Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate and Gurdev Singh are neighbourers of the plaintiff. The articles mentioned in the plaint were not istridhan of the plaintiff. Some articles were given to the plaintiff for common use. The father of the plaintiff is employed in PRTC department and he was not in a capacity to collect such huge amount. No gold articles were given in the marriage. It is admitted that after the marriage, plaintiff and Sukhwinder Singh resided together as husband and wife. The true facts are that after sometime of the marriage, some differences were occurred between the plaintiff and Sukhwinder Singh. The plaintiff was compelling Sukhwinder Singh to reside at Mansa, but Sukhwinder Singh was not agreed. The plaintiff remained adamant at this score. Ultimately, on 13.7.2001 Sukhwinder Singh and Manjit Kaur started residing at Bareta in the chobara of Girdhari Lal and at that time, they had brought all the gold jewellery, cash documents and other domestic articles with them at Bareta. When Sukhwinder Singh had gone to Mansa Court, Master Sardul Singh had met the plaintiff in the absence of Sukhwinder Singh.