RSA No.4105 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4105 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.12.2009 Satinder Pal Kaur .... Appellant. Versus Harjit Singh ..... Respondent. CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. The plaintiff is in second appeal in a suit for recovery which has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The plaintiff has claimed to be the wife of the defendant having no issue out of the wedlock. It is claimed that her marriage was declared null and void by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide his judgment dated 7.10.1998 but neither the dowry articles were returned nor the amount in lieu thereof was paid. Hence, she filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.2,76,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum till realisation in lieu of the amount of dowry. While contesting the suit, the defendant alleged that the suit is frivolous and claimed compensatory cost under Section 35-A CPC. He averred that the marriage was simple and no dowry articles worth Rs.2,76,000/- as alleged were given to him at the time of marriage. List of dowry articles and bills are false and fabricated. The plaintiff filed her RSA No.4105 of 2007 -2- replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (i)Whether the plaintiff entrusted dowry articles as alleged? OPP. (ii)If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the articles? OPP. (iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount claimed? OPP. (iv)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. (v)Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD. (vi)Relief. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1, Pritam Singh as PW2, Dinesh Sharma as PW3, Jagdish Kumar as PW4, Sukhdev Singh as PW5, Ranjit Singh as PW6, Naresh Kumar as PW7, Mohinder Kumar as PW8, Suraj Kant as PW9, Manjit Salaria as PW10, Buta Singh as PW11 and Om Parkash as PW12 whereas the defendant examined himself as DW1, Hardeep Singh as DW2, Kulwant Singh as DW3. After appreciating the evidence, both the Courts below gave concurrent finding of fact that no dowry articles were given at the time of marriage, therefore, the plaintiff was not held entitled for recovery of the amount as alleged. Learned lower Appellate Court gave a categoric finding which reads as under : “In the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant has nowhere pleaded that she ever demanded dowry articles from defendant/respondent or the defendant/respondent refused to RSA No.4105 of 2007 -3- hand over the same. It is not the case of the plaintiff/appellant that the defendant/respondent has misappropriated the dowry articles for his own use and she was not allowed to use the same. There is also nothing on record till the time she remained in her in-laws house, she did not come in possession of dowry articles or she has not used for her own use. No such plea has been taken by the plaintiff/appellant in the divorce petition u/s 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as per photo stat copy of the judgment placed on record by plaintiff/appellant herself. Further there is nothing on the file that plaintiff/appellant has filed complaint under Section 406 of the IPC for misuse of dowry articles. Mere placing on record the bills regarding the purchase of certain articles does not prove the fact that these articles were entrusted to the defendant/respondent or his family members as dowry, to be handed over to petitioner after marriage being her Istri dhan. There is no such pleadings regarding entrustment of dowry articles to the defendant/respondent or his family members and as such, she is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant/respondent.” In the second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one argument that scooter was purchased by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant. In this regard, he has referred to document Ex.10A in which the scooter is shown to have been purchased in the name of Harjeet Singh whose address is given through the father of the plaintiff. He also refers to document Mark A-22 (sale certificate) bearing the similar position. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, I have found that merely preparation of sale certificate or the Invoice c/o father of the plaintiff would not mean that the amount of scooter has been paid by him specially when it is shown to have been sold to Harjeet Singh (defendant). Thus, there is no question of law involved in RSA No.4105 of 2007 -4- this appeal as the findings are recorded on the appreciation of the facts. No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in order to tinker with the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 24.12.2009 JUDGE Meenu