SMT. URMILA Vs. HARI MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.04.1999 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Original Suit No.24/1997.

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff produced five witnesses and four documents were exhibited, whereas respondent defendant also produced five witnesses. Learned trial court after examining and appreciating the evidence of both the sides decided issue number one and two against the appellant-plaintiff and found that the appellant-plaintiff was not entitled to seek any relief and suit was resultantly dismissed.

(3.) While pressing appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the sides have already settled their matrimonial relations through divorce but the respondent-husband has not returned cash and articles of stridhan to the appellant-wife, pointing out certain extract of statements of appellant-plaintiff, learned counsel has further argued that appellant has explicitly mentioned description of stridhan and articles given, at the time of marriage and in every marriage customary stridhan articles are given, which have not been returned so appellant is entitled to obtain return of all stridhan articles and money, which has wrongly been retained by respondent and has further said that the receipts of articles were already given to groom side despite the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence properly and erroneously passed the impugned judgment, so the appeal be accepted and the respondent be directed to return "stridhan" of appellant-plaintiff. Contrariwise learned counsel for the respondent-defendant has contended that there is no error in the impugned judgment, appellant did not adduce any satisfactory evidence before the trial court, regarding alleged "stridhan" and nothing of this nature, even arisen in the divorce matter, which was decided in 1996 and suit for alleged "stridhan" and articles was belatedly filed under wrong contentions of alleged "stridhan", which is not outstanding against the respondent, appellant-plaintiff has miserably failed even to adduce any documentary evidence with respect to alleged delivery of "stridhan" to the respondent, so appeal is liable to be dismissed.