Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 442 (MAD)

Rangarajan v. Padmasini

2013-01-21

M.DURAISWAMY

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The above Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.57 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankagiri. 2. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the above Cross Objection for enhancement of the decree amount. 3. The defendant is the appellant and the respondent was the plaintiff in the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 1988 to hand over the "A" schedule properties to her (or) to pay the value of the same to her. 5. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows: According to the plaintiff, she and the respondent got married on 02.02.1977 and they lived together only for 40 days. Thereafter, the plaintiff went to her parents house. The 'A' schedule movable properties were given to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage by her parents. Apart from the 'A' schedule properties, other properties were also given to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage. The defendant's parents treated the plaintiff in a cruel manner. She was provided food only one time in a day. The defendant and his mother forcibly chased the plaintiff out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the plaintiff is residing with her parents in Chennai. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit. 6. The brief case of the defendant is as follows: The defendant, while disputing the plaint averments, has also stated that the plaintiff parents did not give the 'A' schedule properties to her at the time of marriage. At the time of leaving the matrimonial home, the plaintiff took all her belongings with her. In these circumstances, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, 2 witnesses were examined and 17 documents Exs.A1 to A17 were marked and on the side of the defendant also, the defendant was examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of both sides, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. 9. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the defendant has filed the above Appeal. 10. Heard Mr.D.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr.V.Bhiman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 11. 9. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the defendant has filed the above Appeal. 10. Heard Mr.D.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr.V.Bhiman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 11. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by both the counsels, the following point arise for consideration in this Appeal: 1. Whether the Plaintiff had proved the suit claim and she is entitled for a decree as prayed for? 12. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and the defendant got married on 02.02.1977. Earlier, due to some misunderstanding, the plaintiff was driven out of the matrimonial home by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, they lived together only for 40 days. At the time of marriage, 'A' schedule movable properties were given by her parents. Since she was driven out of the matrimonial home, she claimed all the movables properties mentioned in the plaint 'A' schedule from the defendant. 13. On a perusal of 'A' schedule properties, it could be seen that jewellary weighing 11 3/4 sovereign were given to her at the time of her marriage. That apart, 2½ kgs of silver utensils were given to her, apart from the stainless steel and other articles were also given to her at the time of her marriage. The trial Court took into consideration Ex.A15-Note Book containing the list of jewellary and other articles given to the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of marriage. The trial Court rightly relied upon the said documents and rightly came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff's father had given gold jewellary and the silver articles, apart from the other items to her at the time of her marriage. 14. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the value of the articles, held that the plaintiff is entitled to get return of the items mentioned in the 'A' schedule, except the textile items. The trial Court, in the alternative, directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff. 15. Challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the above Cross Objection for enhancement of the Decree amount. 16. The learned counsel appearing for Cross Objector submitted that the value of the gold had increased multiple. 15. Challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff has filed the above Cross Objection for enhancement of the Decree amount. 16. The learned counsel appearing for Cross Objector submitted that the value of the gold had increased multiple. Therefore, the Decree may be modified taking into consideration the present value of the gold. However, the plaintiff had valued the suit only for a sum of Rs.43,900/-. Since the plaintiff had restricted her claim to Rs.43,900/-only, this Court cannot go beyond, what was claimed in the suit. It cannot be disputed that the value of the gold and silver had gone upwards several times. In the 'A' schedule properties, the plaintiff had claimed 11¾ sovereign of gold and 2½ kgs of silver articles. In any event, the Decree of the trial Court valuing the 'A' schedule properties at Rs.30,000/- is very much on the lower side. If the present value of the gold jewellary and silver utensiles are taken into account, the amount would be much more than what was claimed in the suit by the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court awarding Rs.30,000/- is very much on the lower side and the plaintiff is entitled to the entire amount of Rs.43,900/- as claimed in the suit. 17. Though the plaintiff had not claimed any interest on their claim amount, taking into consideration the value of the 'A' schedule properties, which were valued at the time of filing the suit, I am inclined to grant interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a. from the date of the decree till the date of realisation. 18. In these circumstances, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court are modified as follows:- The plaintiff is entitled to get a sum of Rs.43,900/-(Rupees forty three thousand and nine hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defendant had already deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.57 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankagiri. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defendant had already deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.57 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankagiri. Therefore, it is made clear that the defendant shall pay the amount as decreed in this appeal, after deducting Rs.15,000/-, which was deposited by the defendant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of decree i.e. 03.04.1995, till the date of realisation. The plaintiff is also permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before the trial Court. 20. In these circusmtances, the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.28,900/- (Rs.43,900 – Rs.15,000) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation. 21. Therefore, the Appeal in A.S.No.827 of 1995 stands dismissed. Cross Objection No.1 of 2013 is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.