KANAGASABAI; RAMAMANI Vs. RAMAMANI; KANAGASABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases the second accused and a man with whom she is said to have eloped were charged with theft of certain jewels. The case for the prosecution was that the jewels belonged to the mother of the second accused. The case for the second accused apparently was that the jewels belonged to herself. As to that the Magistrate has held that there was no evidence to show that the second accused was the exclusive owner of the jewels or was in exclusive possession thereof. He further held that even on the assumption that she had contributed from her earnings towards their value, the joint control over and possession of the jewels were in the mother as the manager of the undivided family of which the second accused was a member.

(2.) The second accused was discharged on the charge of theft. The question then arose as to who was entitled to an order for the possession of these jewels. The order which the Magistrate made was that the jewels in question should be given over to the mother and the daughter on their joint receipt. There were appeals from this order and the view taken by the Sessions Judge was that in every probability part of the property in question was joint family property and part was the self-acquired property of the second accused. In these circumstances he dismissed the appeals.

(3.) Now, there are two petitions before me, one by the mother who says an order ought to have been made for the delivery of the jewels to her and the other by the daughter who says the order ought to have been made for the jewels to be delivered over to her.