IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3931 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.5.2010 Santra Devi ......Appellant(s) Versus Anguri Devi etc. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.5382-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit of counsel for the applicant-appellant, order dated 28.4.2010 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No.3931 of 2009 (O&M) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby her suit for recovery in lieu of cost of her dowry and Istridhan articles alleged to be illegally retained and misappropriated by the respondents has been dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, the appellant married to one Hari Kishan, son of defendant No.2, who was suffering from AIDS and died on 28.5.2003. According to the plaintiff-appellant on medical examination, she came to know that she had also contracted the aforesaid disease and after the death of Hari Kisan she was treated with cruelty by the defendants and she was made to leave the matrimonial house and her dowry articles were misappropriated by them and thus, the present suit for recovery was filed. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement and contested the suit. It was stated that the appellant had RSA No.3931 of 2009 (O&M) -2- earlier married to Roshan Lal and her marriage with Hari Kishan was illegal and she cannot claim herself to be the widow of Hari Kishan as her earlier marriage with Roshan Lal was subsisting when she married Hari Kishan. It was further denied that Hari Kishan had died of AIDS. It was specifically submitted by the defendants that no dowry was ever given at the time of marriage and no proof of purchase of any article was furnished by the plaintiff-appellant and a false story has been concocted by her. The dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After evaluating and appraising the evidence on record led by the respective parties, the Courts below returned a concurrent finding that for all practical purposes, the defendant-respondents have admitted the plaintiff-appellant as wife of deceased Hari Kishan, however, she was not entitled to recovery of any amount on account of misappropriation and dowry articles etc. as from the evidence available on the file, there was no proof of purchasing of alleged dowry articles by the plaintiff or her parents and therefore, it was held that no dowry articles were given to the defendants by the plaintiff-appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that the plaintiff has failed to prove the entrustment and misappropriation of dowry articles to the respondents. The aforesaid finding is essentially a finding of fact. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the aforesaid finding can be faulted with. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. May 12, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE