JUDGMENT N.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal, as well as First Appeal No. 363 of 1995, arise out of the same judgment and decree dated 25.11.1994 passed by the Additional District judge, Narsinghpur in Civil Suit No. 3-A of 1992 decreeing the suit in part for recovery of the price of the ornaments given to the plaintiff Tulsa Bai as a gift at the time of her marriage. Hence they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The respondent Tulsa Bai filed the instant civil suit against the appellant for return of the silver and golden ornaments which were given to her at the time of her marriage with the appellant No. 1 Rajendra Singh, in alternative for recovery of the value of the ornaments amounting to Rs. 53,820/- 3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that she was married with the appellant No. 1, son of appellant No. 2, according to the Hindu customary rights in the month of April, 1988. The appellants had presented silver and golden ornaments, worth Rs. 30,200/- to the respondent at the time of her marriage. In the month of Sravana, 1910 when father of the respondent had gone to the matrimonial home of the respondent, to enquire about her welfare, she told her father that the ornaments had been taken away by the appellant No. 2, and his wife. Then her father gave another set of gold and silver ornaments and clothes for his prestige in the society. When the brother of the respondent came to the matrimonial home of the respondent to bring her back to her parents home, the appellants retained the ornaments for bringing less articles from her father in dowry. It was further alleged by the respondent that she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the appellants for bringing insufficient dowry from her father. The appellant No. 1 had married another woman by name Jayanti Bai on 10.6.1991 and the appellant No. 1 had refused to keep the respondent as his wife. 4. The stand of the appellants/defendants was that they had not made any gift or ornaments to the respondent at the time of her marriage. Some ornaments were given to her just to boost up their social prestige. The appellants/defendants denied to have taken back any ornaments from the respondent which were given to her by her father. 4. The stand of the appellants/defendants was that they had not made any gift or ornaments to the respondent at the time of her marriage. Some ornaments were given to her just to boost up their social prestige. The appellants/defendants denied to have taken back any ornaments from the respondent which were given to her by her father. Further stand of the appellants was that all the ornaments of the respondent had been stolen by her Mama Ramnath for which a case was pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate when she was at her matrimonial home. No ornaments were given to the respondent by her father. The appellant No. 1 had also denied to have re-married another lady. 5. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part to the tune of Rs. 30,200/-. The Trial Court however disbelieved the case of the respondent/plaintiff that her father had made gift of another set of ornaments. 6. Shri Vijay Naik, learned Counsel for the appellants, has contended that the suit was time barred and no application was filed by the plaintiff under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for adjudication of her property. Therefore, the judgment and decree under appeal cannot be sustained. The contention of Shri Naik is not well founded, as no stand was taken by the appellants in their written statement that the suit was barred by limitation. Shri Naik is also unable to point out how the suit was barred by limitation. On the contrary, the case of the respondent is consistent that the suit was filed immediately after the refusal by the appellants to hand over the ornaments to her. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of Shri Naik that the suit was barred by limitation. 7. As regards the contention of Shri Naik that no petition was filed by the plaintiff under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for adjudication of the claim made by the plaintiff, the same is devoid of any merit A petition under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act is required to be filed only in respect of the joint property of the wife and husband and not in respect of the stridhana property. 8. 8. It is evident from para 2 of the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff has given a list of the ornaments which were presented to her at the time of her. marriage by her parents. P.W. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have also supported the case of the respondent. The appellants have not been able to prove that the ornaments presented to the respondents were stolen. 9. As regards First Appeal No. 363 of 1995 preferred by the respondent/ wife against the refusal of her claim for grant of decree in respect of the second set of ornaments, which was allegedly presented to her by her father, she has not been able to prove by cogent evidence that any second set of ornaments were given to her by her father after her marriage. 10. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge are well considered and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings. There is no merit in this appeal, It is dismissed accordingly. Both the appeals fail and are dismissed but without cost.