THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No.121 of 2010 Date of Judgment: 26-03-2010 Between: ChekkaNookaiah Setti ..Appellant and Chekka Lakshmi@ Kumari ..Respondent The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY S.A.No.121 of 2010 Oral Judgment: This is 2nd defendant’s Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada dated 26-10-2009 passed in A.S.No.136 of 2005 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No.402 of 2002 dated 29-08-2005, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Pasupu Kumkuma amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid to the defendants with interest. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the 1st defendant, who is the son of 2nd defendant. The plaintiff pleaded that at the time of her marriage with defendant No.1 her parents gave 15 tulas of gold, silver articles and saresamans worth Rs.25,000/- and also gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards Pasupu Kumkuma to the 2nd defendant with an understanding that same should be returned to the plaintiff with accrued interest. The plaintiff joined the company of 1st defendant and they lived together happily about 2 years and thereafter differences arose between them. Defendant No.1 set up a separate family and started ill-treating and harassing the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed M.C.No.3 of 2001 before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada against defendant No.1 and obtained orders of maintenance at Rs.500/- to herself and Rs.400/- to the female child, who born during the wedlock. When she went to delivery, her husband (D1) retained all of her articles and defendant No.2, who is no other than her father in law, failed to return the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. With the above averments the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 (husband) remained ex-parte. The 2nd defendant (father-in-law) filed his written statement traversing the plaint averments and averred that father of the plaintiff agreed to give Rs.1,25,000/- towards Pasupu Kumkuma to the plaintiff. As per the caste custom, the value of gold articles and saresamans have to be deducted from that amount. After deducting the value of the said items, the remaining balance was given to the plaintiff by her father but not to defendant No.2, as alleged. On the said pleadings necessary issues were settled for trial. To prove her case, plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and three more witnesses—P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, R.W.1 was examined but no documents were marked. The evidence let in shows that the parties are Vysyas by caste and the marriage was arranged one. P.W.1 deposed that Nishtitardham (Betrothal Ceremony) was taken place before the marriage and at that time document was prepared agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff towards Pasupu Kumkuma and after Nishtitardham the document was given to her. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clearly establishes about payment of Rs.1,50,000- towards Pasupu Kumkuma, whereas defendant No.2 (father-in-law) took a plea that P.W4, father of the plaintiff, has no capacity to pay such huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Exs.A4 and A5—sale deeds show that P.W.4’s wife sold away the house property for the family expenses but not to meet the marriage expenses of P.W.1. P.W.4 stated that he had spent an amount of Rs.75,000/- only out of the sale proceeds of Exs.A4 and A5 at the time of marriage of P.W.1 with defendant No.1. The evidence of P.W.4 also shows that in the presence of P.W.3 and Mamidi Suribabau he paid Pasupu Kumkuma amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to defendant No.2. In Ex.B1—maintenance application filed by the plaintiff, it is clearly mentioned that her father entrusted gold articles, silver articles and Rs.1,50,000/- towards Pasupu Kumkuma to defendant No.2 at the time of marriage. Considering the above evidence the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. On appeal being filed the lower appellate Court confirmed the same. Hence the Second Appeal. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are on appreciation of evidence, which do not give rise any question of law, much less substantial question of law, to admit the Second appeal and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. ___________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 26-03-2010 Murthy