Judgment : These two revision petitions are filed questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 4-1-2010 passed in Execution no.1090 of 1997 on the file of XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. 2. The parties are referred to in these revision petitions as per their ranks before the Court below. “3. The facts in nutshell are as follows.- 3.1 The decree-holder filed a suit O.S.No.461 of 1987 against the judgment-debtors for a direction to render accounts and also for return of certain jewellery. On contest the said suit was partly decreed whereunder the first judgment-debtor was directed to handover to the decree-holder item Nos. 1 to 4 and 8 gold bangles out of item No.5 to the decree-holder or return their value, by judgment and decree dated 12-7-1995. The said judgment and decree was not challenged by either of the parties and hence it has become final. 3.2. The decree-holder filed Execution Petition No. 1090 of 1997 for executing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.461 of 1987 and Executing Court by order dated 25-8-2001 directed the judgment-debtor to return item Nos. 1 to 4 and 8 gold bangles of item No.5 described in the decree to decree-holder within a month. Aggrieved by this order judgment-debtor filed CRP No. 3864 of 2001 before this Court and by order dated 20-1-2003 the revision petition came to be allowed and it was held that Executing Court could not have passed an order for return of jewellery and accordingly granted liberty to the decree-holder to file necessary application for amendment of execution petition and directed the Executing Court to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. There afterwards amendment was carried out on 23-6-2003 and evidence was also tendered by decree-holder and judgment-debtor. After considering the oral arguments and also evidence on record Executing Court by order dated 30-7-2005 assessed the value of the jewellery at Rs.1,29,627/- an directed the judgment-debtor to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- towards value of the jewellery to the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor on 31-8-2005 filed a memo before the Executing court along with a copy of the challan reporting compliance of the order dated 30-7-2005 reporting deposit of the amount and the Executing Court ordered for payment of the said amount which was paid to the decree-holder and received by her on 1-10-2005. The judgment-debtor on 31-8-2005 filed a memo before the Executing court along with a copy of the challan reporting compliance of the order dated 30-7-2005 reporting deposit of the amount and the Executing Court ordered for payment of the said amount which was paid to the decree-holder and received by her on 1-10-2005. 3.3 Aggrieved by the said order dated 30-7-2005 the decree-holder filed revision petition before this Court in CRP No. 890 of 2005 and after considering the contentions of both the sides, this Court by order dated 10-4-2007 set aside the order dated 30-7-2005 (referred to supra) passed by the Executing Court and remitted the matter to the Executing Court for reconsideration in accordance with law, by keeping open all contentions of the parties. 3.4 Thereafterwards decree-holder got herself examined on 21-11-2007 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. The judgment-debtor got himself examined on 1-12-2007 and got marked Exs.D.19 to D.23. Later decree-holder examined one witness by name Sri Parthasarathy. Thereafterwards arguments were addressed by respective parties and considering the same Executing Court passed an order on 31-3-2008 holding that decree-holder is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,93,553/- (Rs.6,22,803-2,29,250) towards value of jewellery and directed the judgment-debtor to comply with this order within a period of 45 days failing which it was ordered that said amount would carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of order till date of realization. In the said order the value of the jewellery was assessed at Rs.6,22,803/-and after giving deduction towards the amount paid by the judgment-debtor i.e., Rs. 1,75,000/- plus interest of Rs.54,250/-the Executing Court ordered for payment of Rs.3,93,553/- by judgment-debtor to decree-holder. 3.5 Aggrieved by this order dated 31-3-2008 passed in Execution No. 1090 of 1997 holding that decree-holder is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,93,553/- both decree-holder and judgment-debtor filed CRP No.248 of 2008 and CRP No. 177 of 2008 respectively before this Court. This Court by order dated 22-6-2009 allowed both the revision petitions and remitted the matter back to the Executing Court for reassessment of the value of the jewellery. This Court by order dated 22-6-2009 allowed both the revision petitions and remitted the matter back to the Executing Court for reassessment of the value of the jewellery. Thereafterwards Executing Court considered the oral arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and by order dated 4-1-2010 held that decree-holder is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,04,553/- and directed the judgment-debtor to comply with this order within a period of 45 days and further held failure to comply would carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of order till date of realization. 4. It is this order dated 4-1-2010 passed in Execution Case No. 1090 of 1997 which is questioned both by decree-holder as well as judgment-debtor. C.R.P No. 34 of 2010 is filed by the judgment-debtor contending that value of jewellery assessed by the Executing Court is not based on actuals and it is excessive. CRP No.42 of 2010 is filed by the decree-holder on the ground that value of jewellery assessed by the Executing Court is low, inadequate and requires to be enhanced. These two revision petitions were admitted on 18-2-2010 and 23-3-2010 respectively and was ordered to be listed together and accordingly it was listed for hearing after securing records of the Trail Court. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by Smt. Geetha Devi M.P., learned Advocate appearing on behalf of judgment-debtor and Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of decree-holder. 6. Smt. Geetha Devi, learned Counsel appearing for the judgment-debtor would contend that decree-holder had valued item Nos. 1 to 5 as on the date of filing of the suit on 14-9-1987 at Rs. 1.25 lakhs and on 18-10-1997 i.e., date of filing of the Execution petition, the decree-holder has quantified the value if item Nos. 1 to 5 (jewellery) at Rs.30,08,890/- and there is no explanation forthcoming whatsoever as to how this valuation has been done. She would contend that decree-holder at the first instance had not valued the jewellery item wise and in her deposition before the Trail Court in original suit she has admitted in the cross-examination that she was not aware about the value of the jewellery. She would also contend that decree-holder in her evidence tendered at the first instance had not specified any details about jewellery and she has attempted to amplify her claim after the remand in her evidence dated 17-11-2007. She would also contend that decree-holder in her evidence tendered at the first instance had not specified any details about jewellery and she has attempted to amplify her claim after the remand in her evidence dated 17-11-2007. She would contend that decree-holder has been attempting to amplify and inflate her claim stage by stage and step by step and the said value calmed by decree-holder is only a figment of imagination. She would also draw the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W.2 (Sri R. Virupaksha) and P.W.3 (Sri Parthasarathy) to contend that these witnesses are not competent to say about the jewellery in question inasmuch as they admit having not seen the jewellery. She would also contend that witness Sri Parthasarathy (P.W.3) is incompetent to speak about the value of the jewellery since he has not seen the said jewellery at any point of time. She would also contend that evidence of P.W.2 is not required to be considered since he is doing business only as a Gem Consultant and he is not having any knowledge of either gold or diamonds. 6.1 Elaborating her submissions she would contend that evidence of DW.2-Sri Venkatachalapathy is to be accepted since he has seen the jewellery in question and Ex.D.2 is the valuation of the jewellery carried out by the father of D.W.2 which valuation was produced before the Income-Tax Authorities for the purpose of Wealth Tax Assessment. She submits that item Nos.1, 5, 6 and 9 referred to in Ex.D.2 is referable to item Nos. 1, 2, 5, 3 and 4 respectively of the jewellery described in the schedule to the decree. She would submit that Trail Court committed a grave error in not accepting Exs.D.2 and D.9 since Ex.D.2 is the document which the decree-holder herself had relied upon in the Trail Court which came to be marked as Ex. P.77. She would also submit that decree-holder herself had filed the Wealth Tax Returns as per Exs. D.1, D.3, D.7 and D.12 which shows the weight and value of the jewellery in question as on 31-3-1979. She would also submit that decree-holder in her evidence dated 17-11-2007 has for the first time contended that Gold Ring was studded with 4 carat flat ‘Blue Jaguar Diamond’ and this fact is conspicuously absent in any of the pleadings or evidence earlier tendered. She would also submit that decree-holder in her evidence dated 17-11-2007 has for the first time contended that Gold Ring was studded with 4 carat flat ‘Blue Jaguar Diamond’ and this fact is conspicuously absent in any of the pleadings or evidence earlier tendered. She would also submit that the valuation is to be done or fixed as per the value that exists as on the date of the decree and value cannot be escalated from time to time as is done by the Trail Court. She would also submit that weight of the gold arrived at by the Executing Court at 208.50 gms ought to have been 197.5 gms and accordingly seeks for setting aside the order and allowing of the revision petition. In support of her submissions she relies upon the following two decisions. (i) Motilal v Mandir Janaki Nivas and Another AIR 1953 VP 20; (ii) Amarchand and Others v Gopichand ILR 1953 Raj. 1009. 6.2 Smt. Geetha Devi would fairly admit and accept that insofar as the valuation arrived at by the Executing Court in respect of item Nos.3 and 5 as described in the schedule to decree is not being seriously disputed by her and she disputes and question only the weight and valuation arrived at by the Executing Court in respect of item Nos.1, 2, and 4. 7. Per contra, Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi, learned Counsel appearing for the decree-holder would submit that judgment-debtor is none other than the brother of the decree-holder and the decree-holder having lost her husband immediately after marriage was of tender age and had reposed absolute confidence in her brother (judgment-debtor) and had executed a Central Power of Attorney in his favour and by virtue of having reposed confidence in her brother she has not only lost jewellery but also unable to get the fair value of her jewellery as decreed. 7.1 She would submit that father of the decree-holder and judgment-debtor was the Secretary of late H.H. Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar, Maharaja of Mysore and the jewellery in question were entrusted to the first judgment-debtor for safe custody and he has used it for himself. 7.1 She would submit that father of the decree-holder and judgment-debtor was the Secretary of late H.H. Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar, Maharaja of Mysore and the jewellery in question were entrusted to the first judgment-debtor for safe custody and he has used it for himself. She would submit that valuation fixed by the Executing Court insofar as gold is erroneous since it has taken the value at Rs.11,000/- per 10 gms and it ought to have taken the current rate of gold i.e., on the date of the judgment/order dated 4-1-2010 which had gone upto Rs.16,200/-per 10 gms. She would also submit that the Trail Court committed serious error in arriving at the value or price of diamonds based on a newspaper report which refers to a Cricket Ball made by small diamonds and same cannot be accepted as an authentic price of evidence. 7.2 She would also draw the attention of this Court to the evidence of decree-holder wherein she has stated that all these jewellery were given on her wedding day. She would elaborate her submissions to contend that there cannot be any dispute with regard to number of items. However, the valuation adopted by the Executing Court is the only question and on these grounds she submits that impugned order is to be modified by increasing it. Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi would also fairly admit that insofar as item Nos. 3 and 5 there cannot be any serious dispute with regard to the weight of the gold. However, it is the rate of gold fixed by the executing Court which according to the decree-holder is to be fixed as per the market value. 8. Both the learned Advocates appearing for the parties have filed memos as to what should be the weight and value according to their respective contentions. It reads as under: According to Smt. Geetha Devi M.P., learned Counsel appearing for the judgment-debtor the weight and value of jewellery are as follows.- Gold Sl.No. Items Weight 1. Necklace 29 gms. 2. Diamond eardrops 11 gms. 3 Gold Karadige 64.5 gms. 4 Ring 10 gms 5 Bangles 84 gms Total 198.5 Value for 10 gms. 1987-Rs. It reads as under: According to Smt. Geetha Devi M.P., learned Counsel appearing for the judgment-debtor the weight and value of jewellery are as follows.- Gold Sl.No. Items Weight 1. Necklace 29 gms. 2. Diamond eardrops 11 gms. 3 Gold Karadige 64.5 gms. 4 Ring 10 gms 5 Bangles 84 gms Total 198.5 Value for 10 gms. 1987-Rs. 3,020/- 1995-Rs.4,600/- 2008-Rs.11,000/- Diamond Sl.No. Items Amount 1 3.5 Carats in necklace and ear rings at Rs.14,000 x 3.5 carat Rs.49,000/- 2 Flat Diamond in a ring Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.64,000/- According to Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi, learned Counsel appearing for the decree-holder weight and value of jewellery are as follows.- Gold Sl.No. Items Weight 1. Diamond Necklace 40 gms. 2 Eardrops 20 gms. 3 Karadige with rope chain 64.5 gms4 Ring with flat diamond 10 gms 5 Gold bangles 84 gms Value: Evidence of P.W. 3 to be taken as basis Diamond 1. Value of 225 + 110 diamonds in items 1 and 2 to be enhanced 2. Value of 1 gm. Of Flat diamond in item 4 to be enhanced. 3. For fixing the price on diamonds, present Rapaport Diamond Report should be taken as the basis. 9. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, the following points arise for my consideration: (i) Whether the valuation of jewellery assessed by the Executing Court in respect of item Nos. 1 to 5 of the decree passed in O.S.No.461 of 1987 is in consonance with the decree and its value or it requires to be confirmed or reduced or increased? (ii) Whether the order passed by the Court below suffers from any infirmity either in law or on facts? (iii) What order? REASONS 10. The nature, equity and extent of Appellate jurisdiction being exercised in the first appeal and of revisional jurisdiction are very different. The limits of revisional jurisdiction and its contours are prescribed and the boundaries are well-defined in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. The power of the High Court to interfere with the orders of Trail Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to only three situations: (a) That the order of the Trail Court is without jurisdiction; (b) It failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it; and (c) While exercising the said jurisdiction it has resulted in material irregularity. Only when any one or more of these three ingredients are present, this Court in exercise of its revisional powers can clutch the jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the Trail Court and revise the same and not otherwise. Keeping these prescribed boundaries in mind, I have examined the order passed by the Court below. 11. Re: Point No. (i).- Though elaborate arguments have been advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and have requested this Court to reassess the weight and value of the jewellery and having filed several memos depicting the valuation which according to them is to be applied, has been perused, scrutinized, examined and analysed by this Court to consider Point No.1 formulated herein above. As noted herein supra, learned Advocates appearing for both the parties have very fairly admitted that insofar as item Nos 3 and 5 of the schedule to the decree there would not be any much dispute with regard to the weight. This Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Executing Court insofar as these two items is required to be accepted. The order of the Executing Court in respect of Item Nos. 3 and 5 of Schedule to the decree reads as under: “So the decree is crystal clear as far as gold used for item No.3 is concerned, it is mentioned as 64.5 grams and as far as 12 bangles is concerned it is mentioned as 125.8 gms. Judgment-debtor has to return eight bangles out of 12 bangles. If it is calculate i.e., if 125.8 is divided by 12 it comes to 10.48 gms. i.e., each bangle weights 10.48 gms. If it multiplied by 8, it comes to 83.84 gms. So the total weight of 8 bangles is 83.84 gms. and if it is rounded off it comes to 84 gms. Therefore, the gold used for item Nos. 3 and 5 is 148.5 gms.”. 12. In view of the above finding given by the Executing Court and same having been reconsidered and reappreciated by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the weight of item Nos. 3 and 5 in the schedule to the decree is to be held as follows.- Item No. Description Weight 3. Gold Karadige with rope chain 64.5 gms. 5. 8 gold bangles 84 gms 13. 3 and 5 in the schedule to the decree is to be held as follows.- Item No. Description Weight 3. Gold Karadige with rope chain 64.5 gms. 5. 8 gold bangles 84 gms 13. This leaves me with the next question namely as to what would be the weight of gold and diamonds of item Nos 1, 2 and 4 namely Necklace, eardrops and diamond ring. In order to appreciate the contentions raised with regard to weight of gold and diamonds used in these ornaments, it would be necessary to examine the execution petition filed by the decree-holder to assess value of the jewellery. At the first instance the decree-holder had not specified item wise as to what is the weight of gold as well as diamonds in respect of each item. It is only after the order of remand came to be passed on 23-6-2003 the decree-holder amended the execution petition and incorporated the schedule drawn in the decree in its juxta position in the execution petition. Here again it is to be noticed that there was no mention by the decree-holder about the weight of gold in respect of item Nos. 1, 2, and 4 as per the schedule to the decree, even after amendment. In the absence of any cogent material for the Executing Court to assess the weight and value of gold, it is held by the Executing Court that assessment is to be made only on the basis of certain materials placed by both parties in the form of evidence before the Executing Court including the oral testimony of both the decree-holder and judgment-debtor. Hence, the weight of each item namely Item Nos. 1, 2, and 4 are analysed herein below: Item No.1 – Diamond Necklace: According to the decree-holder the weight of gold used in diamond necklace is 40 gms. Whereas the judgment-debtor contends that it is to be taken as 29 gms. and in support of her claim she would submit that Ex.D.2 which had been marked by the decree-holder herself in the original suit O.S.No.461 of 1987 as Ex.P.77 is to be taken as the basis for calculating the weight of gold. The Executing Court having analysed the evidence on record has come to a conclusion that gold used for preparation of a diamond necklace is 40 gms. P.W.2-Mr. The Executing Court having analysed the evidence on record has come to a conclusion that gold used for preparation of a diamond necklace is 40 gms. P.W.2-Mr. Parthasarathy who has been examined before the Executing Court has stated that minimum gold required to make a necklace for the use of 225 pieces of diamonds to be studded into the said necklace would not be less than 40 gms. minimum. This evidence is not controverted in the cross-examination of the witnesses. Though Sri Virupaksha-P.W.1 in his evidence dated 24-11-2003 has stated that for making a diamond necklace consisting of 225 diamonds, 100-120 gms. of gold is required, the same is not accepted by the Executing Court. So also the evidence of judgment-debtor wherein he has stated that 30 gms. of gold could be sufficient for preparing a necklace studded with 225 diamonds. On comparison of these oral evidence the Executing Court has held that for preparing a diamond necklace with 225 diamonds, 40 gms. of gold would be required. This finding is based on sound appreciation of evidence and does not call for any interference and accordingly it is confirmed. Item No.2-Eardrops: The decree-holder has contended weight of gold is to be considered as 20 gms. for eardrops. As to the basis on which this weight is arrived at was not forthcoming at the first instance when the execution petition was filed and even when amendment was carried out, the decree-holder has not specified as to what was the weight of gold in the said eardrops. The decree also being silent on this aspect was analyzed by the Executing Court to arrive at the weight and it was held that weight of gold used in the eardrops is to be taken as 10 gms. This finding is to be confirmed for the reasons assigned henceforth. As stated supra the decree-holder did not mention either in the suit or in the execution petition as to the weight of gold used in the eardrops. The witness P.W.1-Virupaksha examined on 16-1-2004 has stated that ear studs will be made out of gold weighing from 2 gms to 20 gms. He does not specify anything with regard to this particular eardrops. Even the decree-holder in her examination in chief dated 25-2-2004 does not specify as to what was the actual weight of gold used in the eardrops. So also the judgment-debtor. He does not specify anything with regard to this particular eardrops. Even the decree-holder in her examination in chief dated 25-2-2004 does not specify as to what was the actual weight of gold used in the eardrops. So also the judgment-debtor. He relies only on Ex.D2 for considering the weight and value of the eardrops. In his cross-examination dated 20-11-2004 he admits that 10 gms. of gold is required to prepare a pair of eardrops studded with 110 diamonds. The Executing court having considered this fact has found that claim of the decree-holder that 20 gms. is to be considered as the weight of gold used to eardrops is not accepted for the reasons assigned at para 31 which reads us under. “According to me the ear rings should not be so heavy so that it may cause damage to the ear; therefore, 10 gms. is reasonable and ideal to ear as ear rings or studs; therefore, gold used for diamond ear right consisting of 110 diamonds is taken as 10 gms.”. On the basis of this finding it has come to a conclusion that the weight of gold used in preparing the eardrops at 10 gms. On reconsideration and reappreciation of evidence, this Court is not inclined to defer from the said view taken by the Executing court and same is hereby confirmed. ……………… Item no. 4- Ring with flat diamond weighing approximately 11 gms: here again the decree-holder had not specified the weight of gold used in preparing the ring in any of her pleadings. Even in her evidence tendered at the first instance there is no mention of the same. In the memo filed on 23-4-2010 the weight of gold as fixed by the Executing Court is accepted. Hence the finding given by the Court at para 33 holding that weight of gold used for making a ring which is described as item No.4 in the decree to the schedule is hereby confirmed. Weight/No. of diamonds: The diamonds that has been used is in respect of item Nos. 1, 2, and 4. Insofar as item Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned the number of diamonds has been specified in the decree itself which is at 225 and 110 and same is not disputed either by the decree-holder or by the judgment-debtor. Weight/No. of diamonds: The diamonds that has been used is in respect of item Nos. 1, 2, and 4. Insofar as item Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned the number of diamonds has been specified in the decree itself which is at 225 and 110 and same is not disputed either by the decree-holder or by the judgment-debtor. Insofar as the weight of diamonds used in item No.4 the decree-holder accepts the weight of the flat diamond at 1 gm. As concluded or as assessed by the Executing Court, but not be the value fixed by the Executing Court. The judgment-debtor relies upon the evidence of D.W.2 to contend that the value of the diamonds fixed by the Executing Court in respect of item No.4 at Rs.2,00,000/- is erroneous and contrary to what has been stated by D.W.2. The decree-holder has contended that 225 diamonds at 11.60 carats and the eardrops consisting of 110 diamonds is to be accepted at 3.35 carats. Insofar as the contention of the decree-holder with regard to the value of diamonds fixed to the finger ring though it is contended that it has to be taken as Jaguar diamond there is absolutely no material to accept the said contention except the self-serving testimony of P.W.2. The other two witnesses namely P.W.1 and P.W.3 namely jewelers who have been examined on behalf of decree-holder have admittedly not seen the diamond studded to the ring which is at item No.4 and hence it cannot be held as to whether it is a Jaguar diamond or Belgium, diamond or otherwise. In view of this the number of diamonds in respect of item Nos.1, 2 and 4 as held by the Executing Court to be at 225, 110 and 1 gm. is hereby confirmed. Value of Gold: The learned Advocates appearing for the parties have contended that value of Gold assessed by the Executing Court is erroneous namely Counsel for the decree-holder contends that it is on the lower side and Counsel for the judgment-debtor contends it is on the higher side. The parties before the Executing Court have placed material by way of exhibits and also tendered the evidence of witnesses to support their respective claims namely to establish the value of gold. The parties before the Executing Court have placed material by way of exhibits and also tendered the evidence of witnesses to support their respective claims namely to establish the value of gold. Though Smt. Geetha Devi would contend that normally value of movables is to be fixed as prevailing on the date of decree, same cannot be accepted for the reason that judgment-debtor in the instant case having accepted the judgment and decree had not paid the amount as ordered at the first instance and the value which requires to be determined would be as on the date of payment as rightly observed by the Executing Court and hence the contention of Smt. Geetha Devi is hereby rejected. The Executing Court has considered Ex.P7, the paper report dated 4-1-2008 wherein the rate of gold is depicted and has come to a conclusion that the rate to be assessed for the value of gold at Rs.11,000/- per 10 gms. The judgment-debtor in his cross-examination dated 4-1-2008 has also admitted that value of gold as on 4-1-2008 is at Rs.11,000/-. In view of this overwhelming evidence this Court is of the considered view that the value as assessed by the Executing Court at Rs.11,000/- for 10 gms. of gold cannot be held either contrary to evidence on record or higher. It is to be held that same is in consonance with the prevailing facts as also the rates. Though the Counsel for the decree-holder has contended that gold rate has escalated and the present rate which at Rs.15,000/- per 10 gms. is to be assessed, cannot be accepted and accordingly the same is rejected. Value of Diamonds: The learned Advocates appearing for both the parties have contended that Executing Court has not properly valued the diamonds and contends that same is to be revised. Though decree-holder has produced Ex.P.5, dated 30-7-2004 to contend that same is to be taken as the value, the same is not accepted on account of the note mentioned in the bottom of Ex.P.5. Even the evidence of Virupaksha-P.W.1. Venkatachalapathy-D.W.2 and Parthasarathy-P.W.3 has been discarded as self-interested witnesses. Though decree-holder has produced Ex.P.5, dated 30-7-2004 to contend that same is to be taken as the value, the same is not accepted on account of the note mentioned in the bottom of Ex.P.5. Even the evidence of Virupaksha-P.W.1. Venkatachalapathy-D.W.2 and Parthasarathy-P.W.3 has been discarded as self-interested witnesses. Even the decree-holder has not specified anything in her pleadings and the respective self-proclaimed contentions of decree-holder and judgment-debtor has also been rightly discarded by the Executing Court and it has arrived at the value based on probabilities of the case which also cannot be held to be without any basis. The Executing Court at paras 39 and 45 has held as follows.- “Now considering the other factors i.e., the value of the diamond used in the jewellery. Coming to the diamonds, the diamonds used in item Nos. 1 and 2 are to be valued. If we consider Ex.P.24, the value of the ball studded with 5728 diamonds weighing about 32 carats worth Rs.30 lakhs. So if this calculation is carried out the diamonds i.e., 225+110 =335 diamonds. If we calculate it comes to Rs.1,75,433/-. As I have already pointed out it is an admitted fact that while assessing the value of the diamond, four ingredients are to considered i.e., (1) clarity; (2) polish; (3) cut; (4) colour ultimately it is the weight”. This finding is also based on sound principles of appreciation of evidence and probabilities of the case which cannot be held either it suffers from any material irregularity or illegality. 14. In view of the discussion made herein above, I am of the considered view that value assessed by the Executing court in respect of item Nos. 1 to 5 of the schedule to the decree is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered herein above. 15. Re:Point No. (ii): the order passed by the Executing Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and same has been arrived at after considering all the relevant factors urged by respective parties and it does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and accordingly the said finding are required to be confirmed. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) CRP No. 34 of 2010 and CRP No.42 of 2010 hereby dismissed. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) CRP No. 34 of 2010 and CRP No.42 of 2010 hereby dismissed. (ii) The order passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 1090 of 1997, dated 4-1-2010 is hereby confirmed. (iii) Parties to bear their respective costs.