R. L. GUPTA ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of FAO 243/89 filed by appellant-husband and FAO 247/89 filed by respondent-wife. ( 2 ) FAO 243/89 is directed against an order dated 29. 8. 1989 of the learned Addl. . District Judge, Delhi by which in an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act moved by the wife, he awarded her a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 in lieu of the articles alleged to be retained by the appellant -husband and which belonged to the respondent-wife either as part of dowry or her Istridhan. In FAO 247/89, the appellant-wife claims that the learned ADJ should have allowed her entire claim of Rs. 3,06,885. 00 and not Rs. 50,000. 00 only. ( 3 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The Impugned order does not refer to the fact whether any evidence was led by the wife to prove whether her Istridhan articles valued at Rs. 3,06,885. 00 as shown in Annexure F were actually retained by the appellant-husband or not. It also does not indicate if any evidence was led by the appellant in rebuttal or not. The order, in fact, indicates that learned ADJ simply presumed that those articles must be in the custody of the appellant-husband and, therefore, he came to a conclusion that at least a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 be awarded to the wife in lieu of those articles lying with the husband. It is difficult to sustain this order on this point alone. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-wife, however, submits that evidence regarding Istridhan was recorded. However, when it is not referred in the order under appeal, it is not possible for me also to refer the same in the judgment. ( 5 ) THE order requires to be upset for another reason. The articles referred in the application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act of the wife are stated to be her Istridhan i. e. exclusive property of the wife. It has been held by this Court earlier that Section 27 of the Act is applicable to properties jointly owned by the husband and the wife. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of Mrs. Subhash Lata V. Sh. V. N. Khanna 1991 (1) Delhi Lawyer 372, Smt. Shukla Vs. It has been held by this Court earlier that Section 27 of the Act is applicable to properties jointly owned by the husband and the wife. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of Mrs. Subhash Lata V. Sh. V. N. Khanna 1991 (1) Delhi Lawyer 372, Smt. Shukla Vs. Brij Bhushan Makkar AIR 1982 Delhi 223 and Dr. Suraj Parkash Vs. Mohinder Pal Sharma AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana 218. Learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the case of Anju Bhargava Vs. Rajesh Bhargava 1986 (2) DMC 467 and Sarup Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur I (1987) DMC 541 So far as the first judgment is concerned, it has already been referred in the case of Mrs. Subhash Lata (supra) and I need not comment upon it. So far as the judgment in the case of Sarup Singh (supra) is concerned, it may be noted that it takes a view contrary to the view of this Court and, therefore, I will not be inclined to agree with that judgement. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has further submitted that an LPA is still pending decision against the judgment in the case of Subhash Lata referred above. The pendency of the LPA, however, will not make much difference because the decision in other matters cannot be deferred on that account. The pendency of the LPA in any other matter may be of no avail to stay our hands in this appeal. For the afore-said reasons, the FAO 243/89 is allowed and the impugned order of the learnarned ADJ, Delhi is hereby set aside. Since in the second FAO. The appellant claims enhancement of her claim to Rs. 3,06,885. 00, the same also cannot be allowed for the reasons indicated above. Both the apply accordingly stand disposed of. ( 7 ) NOW only the CM 1984/90 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in FAO 243/89 requires to be disposed of. Let that CM be listed for arguments tomorrow i. e. 13th May, 1994.