BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the defendants who suffered a decree in O. S. No. 50 of 1992. The plaintiff filed the suit for a sum of rs. 2,83,000/- and also for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization. Alternatively the plaintiff sought a decree of declaration that she was absolute owner of plaint a schedule property. She also sought a direction that defendants should deliver the possession of a schedule property to her. The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 2,83,000. 00 with interest, therefore the appeal. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff in the plaint alleged that she was daughter of 1st defendant born to the said defendant out of her marriage with one Mr. Lasarus. The plaintiff further alleged that when the plaintiff was 5 years old the first defendant left her marital home and eloped with the 2nd defendant. This happened about 35 years before according to the plaintiff. At that time the plaintiff s father Mr. Lasarus did not have any support for bringing up the plaintiff, therefore he called the defendant No. 1 and entrusted cash of Rs. 25,000. 00 and gold jewellery weighing 50 tolas to her with a direction that she should bring up the plaintiff. He further asked her to spend the money for maintenance and for upbringing the plaintiff. He also directed the first defendant to deliver the gold to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage. The 1st defendant agreed to the request of the plaintiff s father and took the cash and jewellery. But, the 1st defendant did not maintain or take care of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant left the plaintiff in the custody of her maternal grandmother Smt. Rajamma. The 1st defendant utilized cash and jewellery entrusted to her by Mr. Lasarus for purchasing properties in her own name. These properties consist of agricultural land and mango gardens. The 1st defendant also gave part of the said cash and proceeds of the sale of the Jewellery entrusted to her to her paramour the 2nd defendant. The defendants acquired considerable properties by utilizing the amounts entrusted to defendant No. l by the plaintiff s father. These properties consist of agricultural land and mango gardens. The 1st defendant also gave part of the said cash and proceeds of the sale of the Jewellery entrusted to her to her paramour the 2nd defendant. The defendants acquired considerable properties by utilizing the amounts entrusted to defendant No. l by the plaintiff s father. When the 1st defendant deserted the father of the plaintiff she had no property of her own and 2nd defendant was also working as an operator in a cinema theatre. The plaintiff got married in 1967. The 1st defendant promised to deliver the plaintiff the amounts and jewellery but the defendant failed to do so. Smt. Rajamma, the grandmother of the plaintiff executed a will on 9-11-90 in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing all her properties absolutely to the plaintiff. The said Rajamma died on 20th november, 1990. Even after the death of rajamma the plaintiff asked the defendants to deliver to her the suit property. It is further contended that, till the death of rajamma the 1st defendant was assuring the plaintiff that she would return the cash and jewellery, but after the death of rajamma the 1st defendant at the instance of the 2nd defendant refused to return the cash and jewellery. A notice was given and the suit was filed. In the plaint it was also said that the 1st defendant has also come forward with a false case that late Rajamma had executed a Will in her favour. ( 3 ) IN the written statement the defendants took a plea that the suit had been filed with false assertions with a view to get unlawful gains by evil means. It was denied that the plaintiff was the daughter of the 1st defendant. It was also denied that late Lasarus had entrusted any property to the defendant No. l. It was further stated that no Will had been executed by smt. Rajamma, the mother of defendant no. l in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand it was said that a will had been executed by Rajamma in favour of defendant No. l. ( 4 ) ON the basis of these pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of rs. 2,83,000/- from the defendant? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of the suit a schedule properties? 2,83,000/- from the defendant? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of the suit a schedule properties? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the plaint a schedule properties? (4) To what relief? although an additional issue was framed as to whether the plaintiff was daughter of the 1st defendant, we feel that this issue was not necessary to be decided in view of the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff had not sought any declaration that she was the daughter of the 1st defendant. The suit was also not based on the question whether the plaintiff was the daughter of the 1st defendant. The suit was based on an entrustment and we have not seen any evidence on the question of entrustment. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff examined four witnesses including herself. In her own statement she stated that, she was told by her grandmother that defendant No. 1 was her mother. Besides this, we do not find any evidence on the entrustment of property to defendant No. l by Mr. Lasarus 35 years before. The plaintiff in her statement stated that, after her mother eloped with defendant No. 2 Lasarus called her and entrusted the gold jewellery to her. This is unbelievable on the face of it. If somebody s wife elopes with some other person it is highly improbable that the husband of such eloped wife would call her and hand over the property to her for maintenance of the child and for expenses to be incurred in her marriage. It is in evidence that Lasarus lived for a long time after the alleged date of entrustment and he was alive even when the plaintiff was married. The only explanation given by P. W. I in her statement was, since Lasarus was father of Church therefore he could not take the responsibility of children. This is not believable. Besides this, whatever she stated about defendant No. 1 s relationship with lasarus and entrustment of gold and money was based on what had been told to her by her grandmother. ( 6 ) SINCE the entrustment had not been proved at all and there is no evidence for entrustment, even if it is accepted that the plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant no. l even then the suit could have not been decreed. ( 6 ) SINCE the entrustment had not been proved at all and there is no evidence for entrustment, even if it is accepted that the plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant no. l even then the suit could have not been decreed. On this ground alone we allow the appeal, set aside the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismiss the suit. ( 7 ) DURING the course of hearing of this appeal an application being c. M. P. No. 17610/2001 came to be filed in which a request has been made that the plaintiff and defendant No. l should be subjected to DNA test to establish that the defendant No. l was plaintiff s mother. It was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff that the appellant- defendant No. l had accepted while deposing that she was prepared to go for the test. Since the question of relationship of plaintiff and defendant No. l was not at all a question relevant to the suit, therefore we do not think that this application can be allowed. Although this application has been filed during the hearing of the appeal no amendment was sought in the plaint. Even if a DNA test is carried and the result comes in favour of the plaintiff still the suit will have to be dismissed. Therefore, we are not going to take any unnecessary exercise. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that this Judgment will not bind the plaintiff in approaching the appropriate court by appropriate proceedings for a declaration that she was the daughter of defendant No. l, if so advised. No costs.