JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan in Civil Suit No. 4-NL/1 of 2001, whereby the suit has been decreed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,87,915/- together with cost and future interest @ 6% per annum against the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the defendants. 2. Ms. Vandana, respondent herein, was plaintiff in the trial Court. She filed the suit for recovery of compensation/damages to the tune of Rs. 5,87,915/- against the defendants none else but her in-laws on the grounds that all articles/gifts given by her parents and relations at the time of betrothal ceremony followed by marriage including jewelery were with them in the matrimonial home at Ludhiana when after being tortured and turned out therefrom she came to the house of her parents at Nalagarh. She lodged FIR No. 218 of 1997 in Police Station, Division No. 5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana against them under Sections 498-A, 386, 506 and 120-B IPC. Ultimately, her marriage with appellant-defendant No. 1 was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The gifts/articles given in dowry to her allegedly remained in the matrimonial home at Ludhiana with the defendants. 3. The respondent/plaintiff was married to defendant No. 1 Sandeep Singh on 12.10.1994. Prior to that the ring ceremony (betrothal) had taken place on 8.5.1994. The items as per the list Ext.P1 were given to defendant No. 1 and his parents/relations defendants No. 2 to 5 on that occasion. At the time of her marriage the articles as per list Ext.P2 were given by her parents by way of gift to her. The defendants had taken the same to the matrimonial home at Ludhiana. At the time of her marriage the articles as per the detail in the list Ext.P3 were given in gift by her relatives and friends. The same contained golden jewelery also. All these articles were also taken by defendants to Ludhiana and available with them. On the occasion of Lohri festival, fallen immediately after marriage, the gifts and eatables as per the detail in the list Ext.P4 were given by the parents of the plaintiff to the defendants. Besides, the items as per the details in the list Ext.P5 such as emergency lights, Samsung TV and clothes etc. On the occasion of Lohri festival, fallen immediately after marriage, the gifts and eatables as per the detail in the list Ext.P4 were given by the parents of the plaintiff to the defendants. Besides, the items as per the details in the list Ext.P5 such as emergency lights, Samsung TV and clothes etc. were also given by the parents of the plaintiff to her and also her minor daughter Tina. All these items in the form of Istri Dhan are stated to be valuing Rs. 4,05,739/- as per the detail in Ext.P6. 4. The defendants allegedly hatched the conspiracy to dishonestly retain and misappropriate the articles including jewelery her Istri Dhan and as such started using the same instead of returning to her. They even failed to return these articles on issuance of legal notice Ext.P7 also. According to her these articles were given by her parents and relatives for her own use and as such the defendants had no legal right to use the same. These articles were entrusted to them. Since the same have not been returned to her and rather used by the defendants, therefore, they have breached the trust she and her parents had imposed upon them. She had also filed a complaint under Sections 406, 403 and 120-B of the Indian penal Code. It is in this backdrop, she has claimed the decree for recovery of Rs. 4,05,739/- plus the amount of interest i.e. Rs. 1,82,176/- total Rs. 5,87,915/- together with future interest @15% against the defendants. 5. The defendants when put to notice had contested the suit. In preliminary, they raised the objections that the suit is barred by limitation, bad for misjoinder of parties and multifarious-ness of causes of action. Also that the articles in the lists Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 do not fall within the ambit of Istri Dhan and as such, the suit is not maintainable. 6. On merits, though marriage of the plaintiff with defendant No. 1 has been admitted and also that the same now stand dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by learned District Judge, Solan. It is, however, denied that at the time of ring ceremony the articles in Ext.P1 were given in gift to the defendants by the parents of the plaintiff. It is, however, denied that at the time of ring ceremony the articles in Ext.P1 were given in gift to the defendants by the parents of the plaintiff. It is also denied that the furniture articles mentioned in list Ext.P2 were given to defendant No. 2 and that the same were taken by her to Ludhiana. Only 30-40 persons joined the barat to Nalagarh. It is, however, denied that the gifts were given to the defendants at the time of marriage as per the list Ext.P3. The ornaments and clothes given to the plaintiff were retained by her and remained through out with her. The ornaments, jewelery and other gifts given to the defendants were also kept by the plaintiff with her and ultimately taken to her parental house at Nalagarh. A statement that she had taken the ornaments with her and that the car and television etc. were also taken by her to Nalagarh was made by the plaintiff during the course of proceedings in the High court. She allegedly concealed such facts from the Court. It is denied that the plaintiff entrusted the ornaments and other articles, her Istri Dhan to the defendants in the presence of Prem Parkash Chadha, Kanta Chadha and Ram Karan her relatives. Her relatives were not known to them and rather introduced by her to them. It is also denied that the articles in Ext.P4 were given by the plaintiff to the defendants. Even if it is believed that the same were given to them by her, she and her parents had committed a cognizable offence as well as liable to be tried under the provisions of Indian penal Code. It is also submitted that under the Dowry Act a list is required to be prepared by the relatives of the bride and bridegroom. However, no such list has been prepared nor signed by the defendants. The lists Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 as such are stated to be fabricated and forged documents. It is also denied that there was demand for dowry on their behalf and that they had harassed her at that pretext. 7. A daughter is born to the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 out of the wedlock has been admitted and it is submitted that as per the order passed by learned District Judge, Solan defendant No. 1 has been paying Rs. 2000/- to her towards maintenance. 7. A daughter is born to the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 out of the wedlock has been admitted and it is submitted that as per the order passed by learned District Judge, Solan defendant No. 1 has been paying Rs. 2000/- to her towards maintenance. It has, therefore, been denied that dowry articles worth Rs. 4,05,739/- are with the defendants and that they have put the same for their own use and rendered thereby the plaintiff entitled to recover the same together with interest. The suit, as such, has been sought to be dismissed. 8. In replication, the contents of preliminary objections have been denied being wrong and on merits, the claim as set out in the plaint has been reiterated. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount by way of compensation alongwith interest and damages on account of illegal retention of Istri Dhan of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Relief. 10. The plaintiff in order to prove her case has herself appeared in the witness box as PW1 and examined her cousin Smt. Kanta Chadha PW2 and Punjab Singh PW3, the proprietor of “Punjab Enterprises” in Palika Bazar, Nalagarh. The reliance has also been placed on the lists of the articles allegedly given to the plaintiff in dowry by her parents and relatives Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 and the market value of such articles worked out in the list Ext.P6. 11. The defendants, however, failed to produce the evidence despite opportunity granted and, as such, vide order dated 7.6.2006 their evidence was ordered to be closed. 12. On the completion of record and hearing learned Counsel representing the parties, learned trial Court while holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount by way of compensation along with interest has decided Issue No. 1 in affirmative. Issues No. 2 to 5 have, however, been answered in negative i.e. against the defendants. Therefore, in view of the findings on issue No. 1 the suit has been decreed, as pointed out at the very outset. 13. Issues No. 2 to 5 have, however, been answered in negative i.e. against the defendants. Therefore, in view of the findings on issue No. 1 the suit has been decreed, as pointed out at the very outset. 13. The defendants feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree have questioned the legality and validity thereof on the grounds, inter alia, that there was no proof of the articles as per Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 given at the time of ring ceremony and marriage of the plaintiff with defendant No. 1 and that the same brought by the defendants to their house at Ludhiana and that they misappropriated and used the same for themselves. Also that the prices of such articles as indicated by the plaintiff in the list Ext.P6 at her own are hypothetical and without any basis, hence cannot be termed as legal and acceptable evidence. Learned trial Judge allegedly is appropriated and misconstrued such evidence available on record by decreeing the suit. The suit in view of Articles 24, 68, 70 and 71 of the Limitation Act was hopelessly time barred being not filed within three years from the entrustment of the articles of gifts allegedly on 8.5.1994, 12.10.1994 and 13.10.1994. Therefore, the question of limitation raised by the defendants has also not been considered in accordance with law. The evidence of defendants was wrongly closed on 7.6.2006 irrespective of learned trial Court informed that the learned counsel representing the defendants was busy in connection with some family function. Learned Counsel did not inform them to appear in person on that day. Defendant No. 1 was also away to Ujain to appear in some examination, hence was not present at Nalagarh on 7.6.2006, therefore, in the absence of learned counsel and the defendants the evidence has been wrongly closed. The plaintiff who herself is an Advocate has instituted the suit falsely against the defendants at the behest of her father late Shri Kashmiri Lal, who was also a senior Advocate. The orders passed at the stage of conciliation proceedings heavily weighed with learned trial Court while decreeing the suit. As a matter of fact, the defendants never admitted their liability to pay the suit amount and rather in order to avoid the lengthy legal process they were ready to pay some amount to the plaintiff had she agreed for amicable settlement. As a matter of fact, the defendants never admitted their liability to pay the suit amount and rather in order to avoid the lengthy legal process they were ready to pay some amount to the plaintiff had she agreed for amicable settlement. Since the negotiation failed, therefore, the zimni orders passed during the course of conciliation tried should have not been relied upon. The submissions made in writing by the defendants have also stated to be not considered. The judgment and decree under challenge has been sought to be quashed. 14. Mr. Kapil Dev Sood, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate has strenuously contended that the present is a case of misreading and misconstruction of the evidence available on record as well as the findings on all the issues recorded by learned trial Court on assumptions and presumptions. On the other hand, Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate while supporting the judgment and decree has urged that un-rebutted and un-controverted evidence produced by the plaintiff fully substantiate her claim for the recovery of the suit amount and that learned trial Judge has rightly decreed the suit. 15. At the first instance it is desirable to set at rest the controversy qua the defendants’ evidence closed by learned trial Court vide its order dated 7.6.2006. It is seen from the record that the plaintiff had closed her evidence on 12.1.2005. Thereafter the suit was adjourned for recording defendants’ evidence to 12.4.2005. They, however, not produced any evidence on that day and to the contrary filed an application under Section 10 CPC with a prayer to stay proceedings in the suit. The said application remained listed on 18.5.2005, 16.8.2005 and 4.10.2005. On 4.10.2005 the suit and application both were adjourned to 9.11.2005 for recording evidence on behalf of the defendants. The evidence was not produced on that day nor on the next dates i.e. 11.1.2006, 5.4.2006 and 12.5.2006. On 12.5.2006 the suit was adjourned by way of last opportunity for recording defendants’ evidence to 7.6.2006. However, on that day also the defendants failed to produce the evidence. No prayer for adjournment on the ground that the original counsel was absent on account of some family function and that defendant No. 1 was also away to Ujain to appear in some examination there was made by Shri H.C. Thakur, Advocate, appeared as vice counsel. However, on that day also the defendants failed to produce the evidence. No prayer for adjournment on the ground that the original counsel was absent on account of some family function and that defendant No. 1 was also away to Ujain to appear in some examination there was made by Shri H.C. Thakur, Advocate, appeared as vice counsel. Learned trial Court, as such, has rightly closed the evidence of the defendants as more than sufficient opportunities were already granted to them for the purpose and on this score they cannot be heard to have any grievance. 16. The decree sought by the plaintiff is for the recovery of Rs. 5,87,915/- by way of compensation/damages on account of retention, misappropriation and conversion of her Istri Dhan by the defendants for their own use allegedly in an illegal manner. In view of such relief sought in the plaint for the purpose of limitation, the suit is covered by the provisions contained under articles 24, 68 or at the most Article 70 of the Limitation Act. In a situation where the defendants had received the money from the plaintiff the limitation to recover the same is three years from the date the same was received. In the case in hand as per own case of the plaintiff the money i.e. her Istri Dhan in cash was allegedly received by the defendants on 8.5.1994, 12.10.1994 and 13.10.1994 therefore, the suit should have been filed within three years i.e., on or before 7.5.1997, 11.10.1997 and 12.10.1997. The same, however, has been filed on 13.11.2001. In order to bring the suit within limitation it has been submitted that she asked the defendants many a times to return her Istri Dhan but of no avail and ultimately served them with legal notice Ext.P7 dated 1.10.2001. There is, however, no evidence suggesting that they were served with the notice issued to them. She has neither examined some one from the post office in this regard nor proved that the notices were received undelivered due to the fault attributed to the defendants. Therefore, the date of issuance of the notices cannot be taken as a date for the purpose of limitation nor her solitary statement that she approached the defendants time and again to return her Istri Dhan can be believed as gospel truth. Therefore, the date of issuance of the notices cannot be taken as a date for the purpose of limitation nor her solitary statement that she approached the defendants time and again to return her Istri Dhan can be believed as gospel truth. Similarly, the movable property i.e. the articles as per the lists Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 gifted by her parents and relations and entrusted to the defendants could have been recovered by her from the defendants within three years from such entrustment in terms of articles 68, 69 and 70 of the Limitation Act. However, as noticed hereinabove, since the suit has been filed beyond the period of three years, therefore, barred by limitation. The possibility of the suit having been filed after her divorce with defendant No. 1 to harass the defendants cannot be ruled out. The findings to the contrary recorded by learned trial court without there being any justification and reasons therefor, are not legally sustainable. Therefore, the suit being time barred deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. 17. On merits also, as per own case of the plaintiff the lists Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 allegedly containing the detail of her Istri Dhan have been prepared by her and her cousin PW2 Kanta Chadha at their own. There is no basis of preparation thereof. How and in what manner these lists were prepared by them is not explained. The lists do not contain the signatures of either of the defendants. It is, therefore, one sided affair and the element of entrustment of the so called Istri Dhan (gifts and dowry articles) to the defendants is not at all proved. Otherwise also, under the provisions of Dowry Act the document containing the detail of Istri Dhan is required to be signed not only by the parents of the bride but also that of the bridegroom. In the plaint nothing is there that the Istri Dhan as detailed in Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 was given by the parents of the plaintiff and her relations for her use and benefit. The allegations qua demand of dowry and Rs. 5,00,000/- to establish an Industrial unit for defendant No. 1 are also not at all proved on record. Admittedly, the plaintiff qua such demand never lodged any report with any authority. The allegations qua demand of dowry and Rs. 5,00,000/- to establish an Industrial unit for defendant No. 1 are also not at all proved on record. Admittedly, the plaintiff qua such demand never lodged any report with any authority. Although as per the case of the defendants she made a statement in the High Court that the car, television and jewelery articles were taken by her when left the matrimonial home, yet they failed to substantiate this aspect of their case because there evidence was closed by an order of the Court. Anyhow, the plaintiff in replication to para-5 of the written statement has herself admitted that the car was not entrusted to the defendants and that the jewelery given by them to her was also with her. Therefore, in view of such admission she having taken away the television also cannot be ruled out. Above all, the clothes, mattresses, bed sheets etc. gifted in marriage may have been used by her when lived in the matrimonial home. The clothes given to her were of no use of the defendants. Even if anything in gift was given by her parents to the defendants at the occasion of ring ceremony or at the time of marriage, they did it at their own as it is not the case of the plaintiff that there was any demand qua the same. It is also unheard of that if anything including sweets given at the occasions like “Lohri” festival in gift to the daughter or the her in laws that too during the subsistence of relations without demand, the same is sought to be recovered by way of filing a suit. Therefore, there being no evidence qua entrustment of the articles as per the detail in Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 to the defendants, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree sought. 18. If coming to the valuation of the articles allegedly given to her as per the list Ext.P6, the same again is the result of own imagination of the plaintiff being not based on any record such as rate list and bills/cash memos. She has only produced in evidence Ex.P8 the cash memo of Samsung Television and no other evidence is forthcoming to justify the costs of various articles including jewelery she indicated in the list Ext.P6. She has only produced in evidence Ex.P8 the cash memo of Samsung Television and no other evidence is forthcoming to justify the costs of various articles including jewelery she indicated in the list Ext.P6. Therefore, it is also not proved that the valuation of the articles which were given to her as Istri Dhan was Rs. 4,05,739/-. The findings to the contrary recorded by learned trial Judge on Issue No. 1 are not legally sustainable. 19. Now if coming to issue No. 3, learned trial Judge has wrongly decided the same against the defendants for the reasons that in the suit the plaintiff has joined several cause of action i.e. dated 5.8.1994 when certain articles were given in gifts to the defendants on the occasion of ring ceremony, 12/13.10.1994 when the marriage was solemnized and ensuing Lohri festive which every year falls on 13th January. Therefore, the suit was bad for multifarious-ness of causes of action and as such, not maintainable. Issue No. 2, as such, has been wrongly decided against the defendants. 20. However, no fault can be found with the findings recorded on issues No. 4 and 5 nor anything is brought to the notice of this Court as to how the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and not maintainable. The findings recorded on these issues, therefore, call for no interference. 21. For all the reasons hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree is quashed and set aside and the suit dismissed. 22. The application, CMP No. 349 of 2018 is also disposed of.