THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 1034 OF 2011 DT.21.10.2011 Between: Sekuri Anjamma and another … Appellants And S Sujatha and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T Ravi Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1: None Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri V Padmanabha Rao The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 1034 OF 2011 ORDER: This second appeal under section 100 of the CPC is filed questioning the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 168 of 2006 dated 18.1.2010 by the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, in dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S No. 2009 of 2004 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The appellants are plaintiffs. They filed a suit in O.S No. 2009 of 2004 for declaration that the gold ornaments mentioned in the schedule, belong to second plaintiff which were given to her at the time of her marriage by her parents i.e., first plaintiff and her husband, which were pledged by Sekuri Kasi Vishweswara Rao/husband of first defendant under gold Loan Account No. 20/1065 lying with second defendant bank and for possession of the same to the second plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant not to take return of the said gold ornaments lying with second defendant bank. The first plaintiff is mother of second plaintiff and the first defendant is the daughter-in-law of the first plaintiff. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the second plaintiff got married to Reddy Satyanarayana on 4.6.1998 and at the time of the marriage, the schedule mentioned gold weighing about 108 grams was given to her as Pasupukumkuma gift. That subsequent to her marriage, her elder brother Kasi Visweswara Rao suffered business losses and requested the second plaintiff to give gold ornaments to secure certain amounts by pledging them to come over the difficulties. That out of love and affection, the second plaintiff under the assurance given by first plaintiff has given gold articles to her brother Kasi Visweswara Rao, which were pleaded with the second defendant bank for Rs.18,000/- under Gold Loan Account No. 20/1065. While so, Kasi Visweswara Rao died on 6.11.2011. The plaintiffs alleges that the first defendant is liable to clear the loan and return the schedule gold ornaments but with bad motive she is trying to take away the gold ornaments. Hence, the suit. The case of the first defendant is that the schedule gold belongs to her alone and the same has been presented to her by her husband and the same does not belong to second plaintiff. The first plaintiff examined her self as P.W.1 and the legal notice dated 21.3.2003 issued to defendants was marked as Ex.A.1. On behalf of defendants no evidence was adduced. The trial Court on consideration of the matter, framed the following issues for its consideration. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that the suit schedule items belong to the second plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential permanent injunction restraining D1 from taking return of suit schedule gold ornaments from D2 ? 3. Whether D2 is necessary party to the suit? Admittedly, the first plaintiff alone was examined as P.W.1 and the second plaintiff did not examine herself in support of her claim and no documentary evidence was adduced, except filing their affidavits and the legal notice issued by them to the defendants dated 21.3.2003. Therefore, the trial Court, dismissed the suit observing that the plaintiffs except filing their affidavits, failed to produce any documentary evidence and they have not been able to prove the suit claim. On an appeal, the lower Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the matter, partly allowed the appeal, modifying the order of the trial Court, as under; “First plaintiff (PW1) and the first defendant are entitled equally to the suit gold ornaments subject to fulfilling their obligations i.e., discharging the loan of the second defendant, if any, subsisting and the second defendant is restrained from running the suit gold ornaments to the first defendant exclusively.” The lower appellate Court recorded a finding that ’as the deceased deposited gold ornaments with the second defendant for obtaining loan, it can be said that the suit schedule gold ornaments belong to the deceased kasi Visweswara Rao only and since said Kasi Visweswara Rao died intestate, the first plaintiff and the first defendants being mother and wife are class one heirs and entitled to equal shares to the suit gold ornaments. Having held so, the lower Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal. Since the appeal being filed by the plaintiffs and there is no contest by the defendant, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion as regards legality or otherwise, on the above findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal. In fact, the lower Appellate Court also held that there is no evidence to show that plaintiffs gave schedule gold ornaments to Kasi Visweswara Rao and the evidence adduced by plaintiffs is shabby. Thus, both the Courts below concurrently held that plaintiffs failed to establish their claim that the schedule gold belongs to second plaintiff and the same was given to the husband of the first defendant and it was pledged with the second respondent bank. The lower Appellate Court has not granted any relief in favour of the second plaintiff. In the above circumstances, there are no grounds made out in this appeal nor any substantial question of law arise for consideration, warranting interference of this Court. The second appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 21.10.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH S.A. NO. 1034 OF 2011 DATE: 21.10.2011