1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 243/2008 (Nitin Bhaurao Tidke & another VERSUS Sau. Sujata Nitin Tidke) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. D.G. Patil, counsel for the appellants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 11, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The plaintiff no.1 was married to the defendant in the year 1993. It is pleaded by the plaintiff no.1 that on 31.03.1996, the defendant, the wife of the plaintiff no.1, quarreled with the plaintiff and left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the defendant used to enter the matrimonial home forcibly without the permission of the owners of the house and had stayed in the Varandah for the whole day on a couple of occasions. Certain proceedings were instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff no.1. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendant had, while leaving the matrimonial house, taken gold ornaments worth Rs.91,800/- and an amount of Rs.25,000/- which was brought by the plaintiff no.1 for some other work. According to the plaintiff, an amount of 2 Rs.1,16,800/- which included the gold ornaments of Rs.91,800/- and cash of Rs.25,000/- was lying with the defendant. The plaintiff instituted the suit for a decree directing the defendant to refund the ornaments mentioned in the plaint along with the amount of Rs.25,000/-. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs. She admitted the relationship between the plaintiff no.1 and herself. She further denied that she left the matrimonial home on 31.03.1996 after quarreling with the plaintiff and pleaded that, in fact, the plaintiffs drove her out of the house on 31.03.1996 along with her daughter Sonia. She further denied that the ornaments mentioned in the plaint were handed over in her custody after her marriage. She further denied that she had taken the cash of Rs.25,000/- while she left the matrimonial house on 31.03.1996. She pleaded that the defendant had only one Mangalsutra and ear-rings on her person but, those ornaments were snatched by the plaintiff and his relatives and were kept in locker by her husband. According to her, the locker was in the joint name of her husband and her mother-in-law Ashabai. She, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the suit. 3 Both the Courts, on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record, held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the gold ornaments worth Rs.91,000/- were given in the custody of the defendant, treating her to be only the custodian of those ornaments. The Courts further held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant had taken away those ornaments and cash from their house without the permission of the plaintiffs. While recording the aforesaid findings, the Courts considered the fact that though a report of house breaking was lodged against the defendant by the plaintiffs, it was not mentioned in that report that the defendant had removed gold ornaments worth Rs.91,800/- and an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the matrimonial home. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, both the Courts denied the claim of the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE