THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.2317 OF 1993 JUDGMENT: This Appeal Suit, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 05.08.1993, in O.S.No.337 of 1989, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the suit filed for recovery of the dowry amount and articles given at the time of marriage of the respondent/plaintiff with the appellant/defendant were ordered to be returned with interest. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: Marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was performed on 01.07.1988 at Tirupati. During marriage negotiations, the defendant demanded dowry of Rs.40,000/-, which was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff’s mother. The dowry amount was given by way of demand drafts for Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- drawn on 29.06.1988 in Andhra Bank, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam and the demand drafts were given to the defendant at the time of marriage. At the time of marriage, there was some dispute with regard to providing accommodation to the marriage party of defendant. At the time of marriage, apart from the above demand drafts for Rs.40,000/-, the defendant was given a silver plate weighing 450 grams worth Rs.2,122/-, one silver glass weighing about 59 grams worth Rs.404/-. He was also presented with one gold ring. After the marriage, having taken the articles, the defendant quarrelled with the plaintiff and her family members and left to Tirupati on the evening of 02.07.1988, directing the plaintiff to come to Hyderabad to attend a reception on 05.07.1988. The plaintiff went to Hyderabad on 04.07.1988 itself. There was no consummation of marriage at that time. They returned from Hyderabad on 07.07.1988. After much persuasion consummation ceremony was held on 02.09.1988 in a room in hotel Dolphin. At that time, the defendant was given another silver glass weighing 59 grams, one gold finger ring and ring. Apart from that, when the plaintiff and defendant went to honeymoon to Bangalore and other places, he was provided with sufficient funds to meet the expenditure in connection with honeymoon. Apart from them, the defendant was given a Godrej Almyrah and VIP Suitcase worth Rs.4,400/- besides other steel articles worth Rs.700/-. On demand, further amount of Rs.2,500/- to purchase a Tape Recorder was also given to the defendant. With all these samans, the defendant left along with the plaintiff to Hyderabad on 07.09.1988. During her stay at Hyderabad in the defendant’s house, she was harassed by his family members. Though the plaintiff agreed to get her transferred, due to the ill-treatment, cruelty and unconscionable demands of the defendant and his sister, the plaintiff gave up the idea and she finally returned to Visakhapatnam along with the defendant on 26.09.1988. The relations between the parties became very much strained and there was exchange of letters and notices and they were ultimately separated. The defendant is liable to refund the dowry amount, value of movable articles and other valuables to the plaintiff. Hence, this suit to recover the dowry of Rs.40,000/- and interest at 18% and other presentations given to the defendant worth Rs.13,988/- together with costs. 4. The defendant filed written statement with the following material averments: The defendant completed his Chartered Accountancy in November, 1985 and thereafter, joined in services with A.P. Ferguson and company and on a monthly salary of Rs.1,900/-. He with his parents and one sister, who are depending on him, are staying in a rented house and he has no other income, except his salary for his livelihood with his dependants. Prior to negotiations with the plaintiff, several other matches came to the defendant, who voluntarily offered more that Rs.2,00,000/- dowry, since the defendant being Vysya and very few people have such good academic qualification in the community. The defendant was averse to take dowry from the beginning and so, he refused the other matches. At the time of accepting the proposal with the plaintiff to marry her, he told her to wait for a couple of years so that he will accumulate some money for the marriage expenses. But, the plaintiff, her mother and relatives insisted on the defendant not to postpone the marriage for the sake of expenses and they voluntarily offered to meet all expenses required for the performance of the marriage. In spite of their offer, the defendant took some gold from his mother and gave four bangles and one gold chain weighing five tulas. He also purchased silk sarees with the saving amount of Rs.8,000/- of his parents and presented to the plaintiff. As earlier promised, the plaintiff’s mother and her relatives gave in all Rs.40,000/-. The amount so given was Rs.10,000/- towards wedding suit and other clothes to the defendant; Rs.10,000/- towards reception expenses at Hotel Kakatiya, Hyderabad, which was held at the instance of the plaintiff; Rs.10,000/- towards travelling expenses of the wedding party to go to Tirupati and also expenses towards band and music and Rs.10,000/- as Adapadachu lanchanam, as per the custom to the four sisters of the defendant. In view of the promise by the plaintiff to meet the expenses, the defendant met the same mostly by borrowing and repaid the same soon after the receipt of the demand drafts. The marriage was agreed to be performed at Tirupati from the beginning and the defendant made all arrangements for accommodation etc., with the money that plaintiff has agreed to give. The defendant was not given any silver glass, silver plate or gold ring, as alleged, at the time of the marriage. For the honeymoon trip, the defendant made all arrangements and spent his money out of his pocket. The defendant was not given any silver glass, gold ring and hand ring. He was not given any Godrej Almyrah, VIP Suitcase and other steel articles. The harassment pleaded by the plaintiff is incorrect. The plaintiff has been insisting on the defendant to leave his parents and come and stay in her house with her parents for which the defendant did not agree. The rest of the allegations are denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to ask for refund of Rs.40,000/- and payment of interest thereon does not arise. The cash and other articles were not given to the defendant and the values mentioned are highly excessive. In fact, the defendant himself gave gold articles to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit has to be dismissed with costs. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff’s mother paid Rs.40,000/- towards dowry to the defendant or towards marriage separately for the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant? 2. Whether the defendant was paid Rs.2,500/- for going Hyderabad and Bangalore? 3. Whether the defendant was presented two gold rings and gold wire bagh worth Rs.1,788/-? 4. Whether the defendant was given paraphernalia to the defendant worth Rs.8,000/-? 5. To what relief?” 6. During trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were got marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were got marked. 7. The trial Court, accepting the evidence of plaintiff, decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the same, the present Appeal Suit is filed. 8. Now the points for determination are 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for return of the money as claimed by her? 2) Whether the value of the articles claimed by the plaintiff granted by the trial Court is true and correct? 3) Whether the interest granted by the trial Court is true and correct? 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that there is no evidence to show that at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.40,000/- was given towards dowry and certain articles like Refrigerator and gold ornaments were entrusted to the appellant; that in the absence of any proof, granting a decree in the suit is unsustainable; that in the absence of contract, granting of interest at the rate of 18% per annum is unreasonable; that the evidence of appellant has not been taken into consideration, as he has denied about the receipt of dowry as well as articles that were allegedly presented by the respondent and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 10. In spite of adjourning the matter for several times, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment is being dictated today. 11. Point No.1: The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was given to the appellant/defendant towards dowry. The said amount was given by way of three demand drafts. Whereas according to the appellant, the amount was given towards expenses to be incurred for the performance of marriage. PWs.2 and 4 have categorically stated that an amount of Rs.40,000/- is not given towards marriage expenses. The presence of PWs.2 and 4 at the time of marriage is not in dispute or denied by the appellant. The evidence of PWs.2 and 4 coupled with the evidence of PW.1 would clearly go to show that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was given towards dowry at the time of marriage. On this aspect, the appellant stated that the amount was given towards marriage expenses. In the earliest point of time, appellant/defendant addressed letters Exs.A4 to A6, which would clearly go to show that the amount of Rs.40,000/- was given towards dowry at the time of marriage. The execution of those letters by the appellant are not being denied or disputed. Even DW.1 did not deny or dispute about receipt of R.40,000/-. But, his contention is that he received the amount towards marriage expenses. The said plea cannot be accepted in view of clear recitals in Exs.A4 to A6 letters written by DW.1 to PW.1. Therefore, these documents coupled with the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 would clearly go to show that the amount of Rs.40,000/- was given towards dowry and not for marriage expenses. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court on this aspect cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to law. The finding is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. The point is answered against the appellant. Point No.2: The respondent has given gold and silver articles to the appellant at the time of marriage worth Rs.5,988/- and an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards the value of Godrej Almyrah and VIP Suitcase. These aspects were spoken to by PWs.1,2 and 4. DW.2, who is the mother of the appellant, also admitted that there was a custom of presenting gold and silver articles to the bridegroom at the time of marriage. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that that the value of gold and silver articles worth Rs.5,988/- shall have to be refunded to the respondent. That finding needs no interference. Insofar as the claim of Rs.7,300/- is concerned, there is no evidence, except the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4, to the effect that the respondent’s mother had given Godrej Almyrah and VIP Suitcase. There cannot be any dispute that Almyrah and Suitcase must have been purchased from an authorized dealer. No receipt is filed to show that prior to the marriage, or at the time of marriage, or after the marriage, the mother of PW.1 purchased the Almyrah and Suitcase and the said articles were given to the appellant. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, refers to the presumption raised from willful withholding of evidence and from suppression of evidence. The withholding of useful evidence naturally leads to the inference that the evidence if produced would go against the party who withholds it. If a person wrongfully withholds evidence, every presumption to his disadvantage consistent with the facts admitted or proved to be adopted. An adverse inference can be drawn for non-production of receipt for purchasing the Godrej Almyrah and VIP Suitcase. Therefore, the claim of the respondent for Rs.7,300/- is not established beyond preponderance of probability. Point No.3: Insofar as granting of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.40,000/- is concerned, it is unsustainable, because in the absence of any contract, the bank rate of interest shall be granted, which is just and reasonable rate of interest. So, considering the facts and circumstances, the interest has to be scaled down to 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.40,000/-. Similarly, the rate of interest is claimed at the rate of 12% from the date of suit till the date of decree, which is also thereby to be scaled down and it has to be reduced to 9% per annum. 12. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed decreeing the suit and holding that the respondent is entitled for recovery of Rs.40,000/- towards dowry amount at 12% per annum till the date of filing of suit and also Rs.5,988/- towards value of the ornaments and the respondent is entitled to recover interest on Rs.40,000/- and Rs.5,988/- at the rate of 9% from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 12, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.2317 OF 1993 Between: Kommuri Srinivas .....APPELLANT AND Kommuri Saroja ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.2317 OF 1993 November 12, 2010