JUDGMENT 1. The Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the Appellant/Defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dtd. 28/7/2011 in O.S.No.398 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet (for short, 'the trial court'). 2. Respondent is the Plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.398 of 2011 seeking recovery of Rs.9, 37, 000.00 towards the return of dowry amount and also the gold ornaments given to the Defendant at the time of marriage of the Plaintiff and Defendant. 3. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case. 4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows: (a) The Defendant's marriage was solemnized with Plaintiff on 6/6/2009 at his native place, Appapuram, as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, given the demand of the Defendant and his parents, the Plaintiff's parents and her brother, Ramakrishna, gave Rs.6, 00, 000.00 towards dowry that was given four days before the marriage in the presence of elders namely Gottipati Seshu, Gottipati Ramanjaneyulu, Madineni Srinivasa Rao, Gottipati Sriharidasu Narayana, Gadipudi Kistaiah, Yamparala Raghava Rao and others at the Defendant's house at Appapuram. On the date of marriage, one chain, one ring, and one bracelet, together with eight sovereigns of gold ornaments, were presented to the Plaintiff. Indeed, out of the salaries of Plaintiff and her brother, who worked at Bangalore, and the income derived from the lands of Plaintiff's parents, the cash and gold were given by her parents to Plaintiff for her benefit and were handed over to Defendant. Indeed, the Plaintiff, her brother and their parents used to have bank accounts, and they kept the amounts in the bank; they withdrew on different occasions from the respective banks to put the amounts together and handed over the same towards dowry. As the Defendant used to work in Uganda, given his employment, the said huge amount of dowry was given. Defendant's bounden duty is to return the said amount of dowry and gold articles to Plaintiff within three months after the marriage as per law. But he has failed to return the same to date, despite the demands made by the Plaintiff, her brother, and her parents. Defendant's bounden duty is to return the said amount of dowry and gold articles to Plaintiff within three months after the marriage as per law. But he has failed to return the same to date, despite the demands made by the Plaintiff, her brother, and her parents. Plaintiff, her parents and elders demanded that Defendant return the dowry and gold articles, but Defendant used to postpone. (b) The couple lived together happily for one month after the marriage. Later, Defendant left Appapuram for Uganda for employment; four months after, Plaintiff also left her place for Uganda and joined Defendant. When the Plaintiff reached Uganda, she came to know the Defendant's mentality since he used to consume alcohol frequently by quarrelling and beating her, for which she was subjected to cruelty. The Defendant used to take Gutka, and he is also a heavy smoker. The Defendant's habit made it difficult to maintain the family. The Plaintiff enjoyed nothing in Uganda. Instead, she had no peace and pleasure being confined to four corners of a room and had no occasion to exchange pleasantries even with neighbours since she was a stranger to them and to that language and culture. Defendant used to reach the house leisurely and frequently in a drunken state, and he used to take liquor at the house itself during the nights, resulting in beating and abusing Plaintiff and with the result, there was a gulf between them. The Defendant had to resign his job to the Plaintiff's knowledge due to the misdeeds. They left Uganda and reached Appapuram in June 2010. As the Defendant lost his job in Uganda, the couple had to leave the place hoping to have a job and were searching for one in Hyderabad. The Plaintiff used to live in a hostel, and the Defendant resided at his sister's house. The Plaintiff got employment, but the Defendant has not gotten any employment to her knowledge. The Defendant has resided in his native place for some time, living in Hyderabad, and for the rest of his time, he has been going and coming. By then, Defendant has taken a house for rent in Hyderabad from November 2010 to June 2011. The Defendant promised to mend himself concerning his vices, but there was no change. The Defendant has resided in his native place for some time, living in Hyderabad, and for the rest of his time, he has been going and coming. By then, Defendant has taken a house for rent in Hyderabad from November 2010 to June 2011. The Defendant promised to mend himself concerning his vices, but there was no change. When Plaintiff was with Defendant, she was deprived of affection, sharing and caring with Defendant's company, which is required for a newly married couple, and they are not blessed with issues. (c) Later, Plaintiff came to know that in January 2011, Defendant had only one kidney and the other kidney was already removed when he was a boy. Owing to a single kidney, he cannot work hard. He should not be tedious mainly; he should go to vices like taking alcohol, gutka, etc., and the said issue was not brought to the notice of the Plaintiff and her parents at or before or after the marriage. After returning from Uganda, when they put up a family in Hyderabad, Defendant began insisting that Plaintiff bring additional dowry. As such, Plaintiff brought Rs.50, 000.00 from her parents and handed over the same to Defendant. Given having a single kidney and for Defendant's welfare, Plaintiff requested him to give up all bad habits, resulting in Plaintiff being abused and beaten by Defendant. Plaintiff vexed with Defendant's attitude, was forced to leave him on 2/7/2011; as such, she left Hyderabad and reached her parents. Later, the Plaintiff's parents and elders went to Appapuram for mediation, and they requested that the Defendant and his parents change their attitude, but in vain. Further, the Defendant gave notice on 6/9/2011 to the Plaintiff with false allegations. Plaintiff replied with a real set of facts by demanding him to return the dowry amount and gold ornaments, but there was no response from Defendant. After the issuance of the reply notice, Plaintiff and her parents tried their level best to resume marital life with Defendant, but he did not heed the words of the elders. 5. In the written statement, Defendant refuted the plaint averments, admitted his marriage with Plaintiff, which was solemnized on 6/6/2009 and contended that there was no demand made by Defendant or his parents at any time for any dowry or jewellery. 5. In the written statement, Defendant refuted the plaint averments, admitted his marriage with Plaintiff, which was solemnized on 6/6/2009 and contended that there was no demand made by Defendant or his parents at any time for any dowry or jewellery. An amount of Rs.6, 00, 000.00 towards dowry was not given by the Plaintiff or her family members to the Defendant at any time. Defendant is unaware of the identity of the persons claimed as mediators in the plaint, so also the quantum of salary of Plaintiff's brother, his job particulars and his account particulars as to his savings. At the time of marriage, the Plaintiff and her parents knew that the Defendant's kidney was removed when he was a boy, and the same was informed to them. It is also told that the Defendant does not want his wife to be employed and that his wife should stay in Uganda for a long time or his employment only as a housewife. The Plaintiff and her parents agreed to the same, and hence, they neither offered any dowry, jewellery, or any demands made by the Defendant or his parents. Plaintiff and Defendant went to Uganda and stayed there happily for one month, and later, she began to demand that Defendant quit his job and return to India, stating that she could not remain in the home alone and that she could not live away from her parents for such a long time and at a distant place. She began harassing the Defendant mentally at the instance of her brother and parents day to day. (b) Defendant contended that he never consumed alcohol, quarrelled, shouted and beat the Plaintiff and subjected to cruelty and used to consume gutka and is a heavy smoker as claimed. Defendant further contended that he voluntarily resigned from his job out of the pressures meted out by Plaintiff against his employer. They came to India in June 2010, much against his will, and he took a rented house in Hyderabad and tried for a job in India but could not secure any job. The Plaintiff joined him in the said house after prolonged requests. Later, Plaintiff secured the job, left him without intimation, and moved to a hostel in Hyderabad. Hence, Defendant was constrained to issue legal notice, for which Plaintiff issued a reply with all false allegations. The Plaintiff joined him in the said house after prolonged requests. Later, Plaintiff secured the job, left him without intimation, and moved to a hostel in Hyderabad. Hence, Defendant was constrained to issue legal notice, for which Plaintiff issued a reply with all false allegations. Defendant never demanded any dowry, much less any additional dowry of Rs.50, 000.00 as claimed by Plaintiff. The Defendant is in good health, even with a single kidney, and takes the utmost care and precautions. The Defendant and his parents presented jewellery and other articles to the Plaintiff at the time of marriage. The gold ornaments belonging to Defendant are in Plaintiff's custody, and there is no basis on which to make any suit claim. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the Plaintiff and her brother give Rs.6, 00, 000.00 towards dowry to Defendant, and is the same true and correct? (2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim? (3) To what relief? 7. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined on behalf of the Plaintiff and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the Defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and no documents were marked. 8. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.9, 37, 000.00 with costs and subsequent interest at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.6, 00, 000.00; if the Defendant returns the gold chain, gold ring and gold bracelet weighing about eight sovereigns to the Plaintiff, he is at liberty to deduct Rs.1, 77, 000.00 out of the above decree amount which the Plaintiff claimed towards costs of the gold ornaments. 9. I have heard learned counsel appear on behalf of the respective parties at length and have gone through the Judgment and findings recorded by the learned trial Court while decreeing the suit. I have also reappreciated all the evidence on record, including the depositions of relevant witnesses examined by both sides. 10. 9. I have heard learned counsel appear on behalf of the respective parties at length and have gone through the Judgment and findings recorded by the learned trial Court while decreeing the suit. I have also reappreciated all the evidence on record, including the depositions of relevant witnesses examined by both sides. 10. Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, the learned counsel representing the Appellant/Defendant, put forth an argument that during the Defendant's childhood, one of his kidney was removed on helath grounds, the same fact is known to the Plaintiff and her parents much prior to their marriage and that was one reason there was no question of dowry or marriage expenses incurred by the Plaintiff; the Defendant and his family are not aware and they could not identify the persons claimed as mediators and trumped witnesses created to support the Plaintiff's false case; after their marriage, they both lived happily at Uganda, and the Plaintiff owing to her extravagant habits and dreams deserted the Defendant for no other valid reasons; Defendant never consumed alcohol and he never beat the Plaintiff and there are no quarrels between them; Defendant is keeping good health even with a single kidney and he is taking utmost care and precautions to maintain his good health; Defendant's parents had presented gold jewellery and articles to the Plaintiff at the time of marriage, which are in the Plaintiff's custody even as on today and the Defendant himself had gifted the Plaintiff several valuables; the trial Court ought to have framed the issues at the time of trial as to "whether the suit is maintainable for recovery of dowry amount" and "whether the Defendant is entitled to return of jewellery and gold ornaments which were offered by him and his parents to the Plaintiff at the time of marriage" and "whether the Defendant is entitled to return of expenses spent by him and his parents at the time of marriage"; the decree and judgment is void under Sec. 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as any agreement or giving or taking dowry are illegal; the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit instead of rejecting the plaint itself without numbering it. 11. Per contra, Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel representing the Respondent/Plaintiff, argued that the trial Court appreciated the case facts and reached a correct conclusion. 11. Per contra, Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel representing the Respondent/Plaintiff, argued that the trial Court appreciated the case facts and reached a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not require any interference. 12. Concerning the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and in light of the rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1) Whether Plaintiff entitled to return of a suit amount from Defendant? 2) Does the trial Court judgment need any interference? POINT NOs.1 and 2: 13. The following facts are either admitted or undisputed: The marriage between Defendant and Plaintiff occurred on June 6, 2009, in Appapuram, Defendant's native place, following Hindu rites and customs. Initially, they lived harmoniously for one month. Subsequently, the Defendant departed for Uganda, and four months later, the Plaintiff also relocated to Uganda, reuniting with the Defendant. At the time of their marriage, the Defendant was employed in Uganda, where they resided for a few months before returning to Appapuram in June 2010. 14. In support of her case, the Plaintiff (Vankayalapati @ Gandru Rajini) testified as PW.1. She asserted that during their residence in Uganda, the Defendant regularly consumed Gutka. The Plaintiff experienced dissatisfaction and a lack of peace while in Uganda, confined to the four corners of a room with minimal interaction with neighbours. The Defendant would frequently return home in an inebriated state, consuming alcohol on the premises during the night, leading to instances of physical abuse and ver- bal insults. Consequently, their relationship deteriorated, and due to the Defendant's misconduct, he resigned from his job, as per the Plaintiff's knowledge. 15. Coming to the version of Defendant (Gandru Venugopala Krishna) as DW.1, they lived happily for one month and later, Plaintiff (PW.1) began demanding that Defendant quit his job and return to India, stating that she could not stay in the home lonely and she could not live away from her parents for such a long time and at a distant place; she began harassing mentally at the instance of her brother and parents day to day. 16. While the mutual accusations between the parties may not directly impact the resolution of the underlying dispute, this Court is inclined to record findings pertinent to adjudicating the case. 17. 16. While the mutual accusations between the parties may not directly impact the resolution of the underlying dispute, this Court is inclined to record findings pertinent to adjudicating the case. 17. During cross-examination, PW.1 stated that following their marriage, she, the Defendant, her parents, and the Defendant's parents travelled to Tirupati the next day. They returned to Appapuram on June 8, 2009, staying there for twenty days. Subsequently, they visited the Plaintiff's parents' house, where they remained for two days. Notably, Defendant (DW.1) abstained from consuming liquor during the one-month stay in India. They cohabited for a month before departing for Uganda. In this initial period, the Defendant typically lived with the Plaintiff. After the Plaintiff joined the Defendant in Uganda, their cohabitation continued briefly. However, the dynamics changed as the Defendant began consum- ing liquor and gutka, leading to incidents of physical abuse. The Plaintiff endured this situation for six months in Uganda. 18. Notably, from PW.1's testimony during cross-examination, it is evident that she had no grievances regarding the Defendant's behaviour during their initial stay in India immediately after the marriage. 19. DW.1's testimony indicates that he voluntarily resigned from his job under the pressure exerted by Plaintiff (PW.1). However, Plaintiff fails to provide evidence demonstrating that Defendant lost his job in Uganda due to misconduct on his part. The available material indicates that after departing for Uganda, they resided in India briefly. Despite the Defendant attempting to secure employment in India by living in a rented house in Hyderabad, he was unsuccessful. In contrast, PW.1's cross-examination reveals that after her husband's resignation, she returned to India and found employment five months later, while the Defendant struggled to secure a job. 20. According to DW.1, after PW.1 secured employment, she left their shared residence without informing him and moved to a hostel. The Court finds it noteworthy that if disputes existed between PW.1 and DW.1 in Uganda, their ability to reside together, even temporarily, in India would be improbable. It is clear from the record that after securing the job, PW.1 left the DW.1. The DW.1's evidence, in this regard, is supported by admissions made by PW.1 in the cross-examination. The Court finds it noteworthy that if disputes existed between PW.1 and DW.1 in Uganda, their ability to reside together, even temporarily, in India would be improbable. It is clear from the record that after securing the job, PW.1 left the DW.1. The DW.1's evidence, in this regard, is supported by admissions made by PW.1 in the cross-examination. PW.1 testified in the crossexamination that she did not personally know where DW.1 was residing; she did not enquire about him; to her knowledge, DW.1 was in Hyderabad up to March 2012, but she does not know his whereabouts subsequently. Any convincing evidence did not prove the accusations against DW.1 concerning his behaviour. 21. Conversely, PW.1's testimony indicates that she had no grievances about DW.1's behaviour before they departed for Uganda. The evidence on record establishes that, at the insistence of PW.1, DW.1 returned to India by resigning from his job. Failing to secure employment in India, he returned to Uganda and secured a job. 22. It is DW.1's version that a kidney was removed when he was a boy, and the Plaintiff and her parents knew the same at the time of marriage. Whereas, Plaintiff's stand is that she came to know in January 2011 that Defendant had only one Kidney and another Kidney was already removed when he was a boy; owing to the existence of a single kidney, Defendant cannot work hard and should not be tedious and mainly he should not go to vices like taking alcohol, gutka etc. In the cross-examination, PW.1 testified that one month after her marriage, she came to know that the Defendant had got a single kidney; her parents informed her the same. The said stand taken by PW.1 goes to show that even before going to Uganda, she was informed by her parents concerning the Defendant's single kidney. It contradicts the stand taken by Plaintiff that in January 2011, she came to know that Defendant had only one kidney. Given the same, it is clear that PW.1 was informed by 6/7/2009 that Defendant had only a single kidney. It undermines the stand taken by Plaintiff, however, it probablises Defendant's version that even before the marriage, Plaintiff's parents informed; otherwise, there was no reason to inform them one month after the marriage. If that were so, the Plaintiff and her parents would have raised a dispute for not informing the same. It undermines the stand taken by Plaintiff, however, it probablises Defendant's version that even before the marriage, Plaintiff's parents informed; otherwise, there was no reason to inform them one month after the marriage. If that were so, the Plaintiff and her parents would have raised a dispute for not informing the same. The Plaintiff has not explained why the Defendant and his parents disclosed this information one month after their marriage. Though PW.2 (the Plaintiff's father, Vankayalapati Sambasiva Rao) is examined, his testimony does not provide substantive information in this regard. 23. Plaintiff asserts that Rs.6, 00, 000.00 in cash was given as dowry four days before the marriage, responding to demands made by Defendant and his parents. The Defendant denies receiving any dowry or jewellery for the alleged demands. It is the Plaintiff's case that at the time of their marriage, given the demand made by the Defendant and his parents, the Plaintiff's parents and her brother, Rama Krishna, gave Rs.6, 00, 000.00 cash towards dowry, that was given four days before the marriage in the presence of elders namely Gottipati Seshu, Gottipati Ramanjaneyulu, Maddineni Srinivasarao, Gottipati Srihari Dasu Nayana, Gadipudi Kistaiah, Emparala Raghavararao. The Defendant's stand is that the Plaintiff's parents neither offered any dowry nor jewellery for any demands made by the Defendants or his parents. Now, the point for consideration is whether the Plaintiff paid the dowry amount; if so, they are entitled to the return of the dowry amount. 24. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the suit for the return of the dowry amount is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in Arun Garg v. State of Punjab, (2004) 8 SCC 251 . wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 33. ...............................It is also pertinent to note that Sec. 357(5) CrPC says that at the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this Sec. . The direction to pay compensation under Sec. 357(3) is on the assumption of basic civil liability on the part of the person who committed the offence to redress the victim or his dependants by payment of compensation. The direction to pay compensation under Sec. 357(3) is on the assumption of basic civil liability on the part of the person who committed the offence to redress the victim or his dependants by payment of compensation. The complainant could not have filed a civil suit for recovery of the dowry amount, if any, as the payment itself was illegal and prohibited under law. In any view of the matter, the direction of the High Court to pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs as a fine was not warranted by law and we set aside the same and also further direction that the appellant to undergo default sentence. 25. Learned counsel for the Appellant further relied on the decision in Sunil Kumar Mukherjee v. Mita Mukherjee, 1989 SCC OnLine Cal 150. wherein the High Court of Calcutta held that: 14. Now, the question arises: Can the Civil Court pass a decree for enforcement of the obligation enjoined by s. 6(1) of the said Act? 15. On going through the provisions of the Act we feel that it is the Criminal Court and Criminal Court alone that can enforce the liability enjoined by s. 6(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 16. The Dowry Prohibition Act is a special statute. It has, in our opinion, created a special right by s. 6(1) for recovery of dowry, although both the giving and the taking of dowry are made punishable offences, and this Act also prescribes the remedy for recovery of the dowry. If the dowry is not transferred despite the order of the Court (meaning Criminal Court) made under s. 6(3-A), the same may be realised by following the procedure for the realisation of fines. This appears clearly to be the law arising from the provisions of s. 6(3-A) of the Act. 17. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to make an order for transfer of the Dowry is by clear implication barred by the provisions of s. 6 of the Act. 26. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff submits that the suit for the dowry amount is maintainable. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision in Vadhiboyana Venkata Krishna Reddy Rep. by GPA Holder Vadhiboyina Yandadhi Reddy and 3 others V. C.Venkata RamamaReddy and another, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 79. the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: 9. ............... In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision in Vadhiboyana Venkata Krishna Reddy Rep. by GPA Holder Vadhiboyina Yandadhi Reddy and 3 others V. C.Venkata RamamaReddy and another, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 79. the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: 9. ............... The IV Additional District Court, Kadapa, dismissed the petition in I.A. No. 606/2017 relying on Smt. G. Renuka's case (1 supra), wherein this Court in view of Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, held that plaint is maintainable to recover the amount of dowry. It was observed thus: "Para 13: I may also point out that the Dowry Prohibition Act contemplates two stages. The first stage is taking or giving or abetting of giving or taking of dowry. The second stage is, after taking dowry and pending transfer of the same to the beneficiary, the person holds it in trust for the benefit of the woman. Though under the first stage, namely, taking or giving or abetting of giving or taking of dowry is punishable and therefore such act is a void transaction; under the second stage i.e. after taking the dowry, the Legislature itself has provided that the person who took the dowry shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman pending transfer in her favour. Therefore, during the second stage, it is open to a woman to file a suit to recover the amount from the person who held the dowry in trust, if that person has not transferred the trust property in favour of the woman for her benefit. It follows from the above, that the suit by the plaintiff, in this case, is maintainable, as admittedly, the 2nd defendant, who admitted to have received the amount of dowry from the father of the plaintiff by way of a cheque on 19/4/1974, had not transferred it for the benefit of the plaintiff. The observations made by this Court in G. Ramasubbaiahv. G. Rajamma 1975 (1) APLJ 168 also categorically say that giving or receiving of dowry will come within the mischief of Sec. 3 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Sec. 6. Subject to the provisions of Sec. 6 means that the person taking the dowry holds the property for the benefit of the woman as a trustee. G. Rajamma 1975 (1) APLJ 168 also categorically say that giving or receiving of dowry will come within the mischief of Sec. 3 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Sec. 6. Subject to the provisions of Sec. 6 means that the person taking the dowry holds the property for the benefit of the woman as a trustee. It does not mean to say that during the said period, the woman cannot file a suit for recovery of the same. Sec. 6 of the Act enables the wife to file a suit for recovery of the dowry paid, if the person who received the dowry has failed to transfer the property for the benefit of the woman within the prescribed period. Para 14: It follows from the above, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of dowry and the suit is maintainable under Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961." 27. After considering the scope and ambit of Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Bobbili Ramakrishna Raju Yadav v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2016) 3 SCC 309 . held that if the dowry amount or articles of a married woman was placed in the custody of his husband or in-laws, they would be deemed to be trustees of the same. The person receiving dowry articles or the person who has dominion over the same, as per Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is bound to return the same within three months after the date of marriage to the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given. If he does not do so, he will be guilty of a dowry offence under the said Sec. . 28. After careful reading of the decisions cited, as per the Sec. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the husband is bound to transfer the property to the woman and he is a trustee until such transfer of the woman. In other words, the beneficial interest in the transaction is with the woman and the husband, transferee is only a trustee. That shows that the transaction does not become a void transaction. Therefore, the Legislature itself has provided under Sec. 6 of the Act, that pending transfer of the dowry, the person who received the dowry holds it in trust for the benefit of the woman. 29. That shows that the transaction does not become a void transaction. Therefore, the Legislature itself has provided under Sec. 6 of the Act, that pending transfer of the dowry, the person who received the dowry holds it in trust for the benefit of the woman. 29. The rights of the beneficiary are dealt with under Sec. 56 of the Trusts Act, 1882, which reads as follows: "56. Right to specific execution: The beneficiary is entitled to have the intention of the author of the trust specifically executed to the extent of the beneficiary's interest; Right to transfer of possession: and where there is only one beneficiary and he is competent, or where there are several beneficiaries and they are competent to contract and all of one mind, he or they may require the trustee to transfer the trust property to him or to such person as he or they may direct." 12. Sec. 56 of the Trust Act enables the beneficiary to file a suit for recovery of trust property. 30. The Dowry Prohibition Act contemplates two aspects; the first is the prohibition of taking or giving or abetting of giving or taking of dowry and making such acts punishable. The second is, the creation of obligation under Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on those who receive dowry to transfer the same to the beneficiary, and till then the person holds it in trust for the benefit of the woman. When taking or giving or abetting of giving or taking of dowry is punishable, any such transaction is tantamount to a void transaction. As per Sec. 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 if the object or consideration of an agreement is forbidden by law, that agreement is void. The question then is, can there be a valid claim for recovery of the money and the gold thus given? The Legislature itself has provided in Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act that the person who took the dowry shall give it to the woman, and in the interregnum hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman. Therefore, it is the right of a woman to file a suit to recover the amount and gold from the person who held the dowry in trust, if that person has not transferred the trust property in favour of the woman. Therefore, it is the right of a woman to file a suit to recover the amount and gold from the person who held the dowry in trust, if that person has not transferred the trust property in favour of the woman. It follows that the claim in the original petition is permissible in law. 31. Therefore, it is open to a woman to file a suit to recover the amount from the person who held the dowry in trust, if that person has not transferred the trust property in favour of the woman for her benefit. 32. In Mohammed Ibrahim and another V. Mohammed Abdul Razaak, 2007 (5) ALT 510 the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: 25. It is settled proposition of law that burden of proof is generally on plaintiff. Decision should rest on rule as to burden of proof under law and also the admitted or proved circumstances of the case. The strict meaning of the word 'onus probandi' is that if no evidence is given by the party on whom the burden is cast the issue must be found against him and only then the other party has the onus of rebuttal. The first principle of the Evidence Act is that a party who is to prove an allegation must do so. The Court cannot imagine evidence in the absence of it. The plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and is not assisted by any weakness, real or apparent in the case of the defendant. The defect in evidence of the party on whom the onus of proof lies cannot be cured by criticism of the evidence of the other party. 33. Now, it is to be seen whether the Plaintiff established her case regarding the payment of dowry amount. 34. In her testimony as PW.1, the Plaintiff furnished details about the dowry payment. However, she does not claim to have been present during the payment. PW.2, the Plaintiff's father, stated that he and his son, Ramakrishna, gave Rs.6, 00, 000.00 as dowry in the presence of elders. He explained that they maintained bank accounts, withdrawing amounts on different occasions to compile the total dowry amount. However, she does not claim to have been present during the payment. PW.2, the Plaintiff's father, stated that he and his son, Ramakrishna, gave Rs.6, 00, 000.00 as dowry in the presence of elders. He explained that they maintained bank accounts, withdrawing amounts on different occasions to compile the total dowry amount. The Plaintiff supports this claim with documentary evidence, including Ex.A.1 (a copy of the statement of account), Ex.A.4 (Savings passbook of the Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited), and Ex.A.5 (Savings bank account issued by Indian Bank of India in the name of Plaintiff's parents). In cross-examination, PW.1 specified that she withdrew Rs.1, 61, 000.00 from her account, sourced from her salary savings and contributions from her parents. She highlighted her father's withdrawal of Rs.1, 95, 000.00 from Ex.A.5 ten days before the marriage. The Plaintiff relies on these documents to demonstrate the withdrawal of dowry amounts from their accounts. 35. PW.7 (B. Ravi Kumar), a Bank Manager at the Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank in Chilakaluripet, was called by the Plaintiff as a witness. He affirmed that the bank issued the Ex.A.4 passbook in the name of V. Rajini (PW.1), confirming the accuracy of all entries, including withdrawals. This testimony was not significantly contested during crossexamination. 36. Turning to PW.6 (A. Srinivasa Rao), the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, he attested that Ex.A.5 represented the Savings Bank account of V. Sambasiva Rao (PW.2) and his wife Subbayamma. He noted entries dtd. 29/5/2009 to 30/5/2009 involving the credit of amounts from closing deposits by them and ended collections. However, details such as dates, amounts, and maturity dates were not specified in Ex.A.5. In cross-examination, PW.2 stated that within one month of the marriage, they withdrew Rs.1, 60, 000.00 from PW.1's account, which he kept at home. He did not recall when he opened Ex.A.5 in Pasumarru bank, deposited Rs.1, 92, 000.00, and withdrew the same on 30/5/2009. However, details such as dates, amounts, and maturity dates were not specified in Ex.A.5. In cross-examination, PW.2 stated that within one month of the marriage, they withdrew Rs.1, 60, 000.00 from PW.1's account, which he kept at home. He did not recall when he opened Ex.A.5 in Pasumarru bank, deposited Rs.1, 92, 000.00, and withdrew the same on 30/5/2009. The withdrawals from PW.1's account, her father's account, and her brother's account (as per the entries of Ex.A.1) amounted to Rs.5, 52, 000.00 from different banks.Despite explicit statements by the Plaintiff and PW.2 in their evidence that PW.1, her brother, and her parents maintained bank accounts, deposited amounts, and withdrew them on different occasions for dowry, PW.8 (V. Ramakrishna) testified in cross-examination that he sent Rs.1, 00, 000.00 on 30/5/2009 and Rs.75, 000.00 on 4/6/2009, with the first amount handed over to the Defendant by PW.2 on 5/6/2009. This contradicts the Plaintiff's claim of paying Rs.6, 00, 000.00 four days before the marriage. The absence of mention of this fact in the plaint or the depositions of PWs.1 and 2 raises doubts about the credibility of PW.8's testimony. 37. In Vinod Kumar Arora Vs. Smt. Surjit Kaur, AIR 1987 SC 2179 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "The pleadings of the parties form the foundation of the case and it is not open to them to give up the case set out in the pleadings and propounded a new and different case." 38. In the case Kondaviti Francis Vs. M.Ludramma and others, 2000 (3) ALT 433 the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that: "It is an established and expected principle that pleadings form the foundation of the case, and the pleadings bind the parties. They cannot travel beyond the pleadings or set up a new issue which is not propounded in the pleadings, and any amount of evidence contrary to the pleadings cannot be looked into ( AIR 1987 SC 2179 ). 39. The standard of proof evidentially is principles of preponderance of probability. Inference of preponderance of probability can be drawn not only from the materials on record but also by references to the circumstances upon which reliance is placed. 40. It can be seen from the record that both parties relied on oral evidence to prove their contentions regarding payment or non-payment of the dowry amount. 41. In Dr. Inference of preponderance of probability can be drawn not only from the materials on record but also by references to the circumstances upon which reliance is placed. 40. It can be seen from the record that both parties relied on oral evidence to prove their contentions regarding payment or non-payment of the dowry amount. 41. In Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326 a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court explained when can it be said that the fact is proved by a preponderance of probabilities as follows: "The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he links that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second." 16................... The Court held that absolute certainty is not the requirement under Sec. 3 of the Evidence Act. In a civil case rival contentions and rival evidence will have to be considered, assessed, evaluated, and weighed to come to a conclusion about whether the burden on the claimant has been discharged. The standard of proof, therefore, is by a preponderance of probabilities. 42. In Civil cases, the preponderance of probability constitutes a sufficient ground for decision if the facts and circumstances are such that no reasonable man would draw a particular inference from them or if the degree of probability in the case is such that as to include any hypothesis besides the one to be proved then the party who relies on a particular theory cannot be said to have discharged the onus of proof of establishing that theory. But, if there is evidence strongly prepondering in favour of any one of the two theories set up, the Court is entitled to act upon it. 43. But, if there is evidence strongly prepondering in favour of any one of the two theories set up, the Court is entitled to act upon it. 43. In R.PuthunainarAlhithan V. P.H.Pandian, (1996) 3 SCC 624 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an inference from the proved facts must be so probable that if the Court believes, from the proved facts, that the facts do exist, it must be held that the fact has been proved. The inference of proof of that fact could be drawn from the given objective, direct or circumstantial. 44. In M.Narsinga Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 1 SCC 691 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 15. The word "proof" needs to be understood in the sense it is defined in the Evidence Act because proof depends upon the admissibility of evidence. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. This is the definition given for the word "proved" in the Evidence Act. What is required is the production of such materials on which the Court can reasonably act to reach the supposition that a fact exists. Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning him. Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawkins v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Company, Ltd., observed this : "Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion." 16. The said observation has stood the test of time and can now be followed as the standard of proof. In reaching a conclusion, the Court can use the process of inferences to be drawn from facts produced or proved. Such inferences are akin to presumptions in law. The law gives absolute discretion to the Court to presume the existence of any fact that it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the Court may have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public or private business vis-a-vis the facts of the particular case. Such inferences are akin to presumptions in law. The law gives absolute discretion to the Court to presume the existence of any fact that it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the Court may have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public or private business vis-a-vis the facts of the particular case. The discretion is envisaged in Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act. 45. The evidence brought on record by both parties should be appreciated in light of the aforesaid principle of law. 46. It is the Plaintiff's stand, as already mentioned that they had withdrawn the amounts from the banks. Regarding the payment of Rs.1, 75, 000.00, as deposed by PW.8 in the cross-examination, neither the plea was taken in the plaint, nor would PWs.1 and 2 have deposed the said fact. Even the said fact was not disclosed by PW.8 in the chief examination, when he was cross-examined concerning the amounts paid by him, has narrated the said version. The material on record, particularly Exs.A.1, A.4 and A.5, clearly shows that only Rs.5, 52, 000.00 was withdrawn from the bank. It falsifies the Plaintiff's contention that they paid the dowry amount of Rs.6, 00, 000.00 and that is why the Plaintiff introduced the evidence of PW.2 that he got Rs.2, 00, 000.00 from the sale of Bengal gram crop that amount also is in his house and those are the amounts with him at the time of marriage and there is no document to show that he sold the Bengal gram crop for Rs.2, 00, 000.00. It is an afterthought to show the payment of Rs.6, 00, 000.00 towards the dowry. As the Plaintiff and her father clearly stated in the plaint as well as in their evidence that they had withdrawn the amounts from the banks on different occasions from the respective banks to put the amounts together and to hand over the same towards dowry, this Court finds that they introduced the theory of sale of Bengal gram crop and having an amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 with the PW.1's father and also sending of the amount of Rs.1, 75, 000.00 through Rajesh Kumar of Parchur and handing over of the amount of Rs.75, 000.00 to his father at Passumuru. Such a developed version during the trial time without foundation in the pleadings cannot be considered as the said pleas are contra to the earlier pleas taken in the plaint. 47. It is not the PW.1's evidence that she was present at the time of payment of the dowry amount to the Defendant and his parents. The PW.2's evidence shows that they paid the dowry amount four days before the marriage in the presence of elders. According to PW.2's evidence, his son was also present when making the dowry payment. In this regard, PW.3 (Gottipati Ramanjaneyulu) also supported the evidence of Plaintiff and her father by deposing that PW.1's parents and her brother, Ramakrishna, gave Rs.6, 00, 000.00 towards dowry and it was given four days before the marriage of Defendant in the presence of elders. Coming to the evidence of PW.4 (Gottipati Kistaiah), he testified that PW.1's parents and her brother gave Rs.6, 00, 000.00 of dowry four days before the marriage to the Defendant in his presence. It is the evidence of PW.5 (Gottipati Seshubabu) also that the dowry amount was given four days before the marriage. It is clear from the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 that PW.8 was present when making the payment of Rs.6, 00, 000.00 to the Defendant and his parents. But, in the cross-examination, PW.2 clearly states that his son Ramakrishna (PW.8) was not present at the time of the above marriage proposal and the marriage date; his son came only on the date of marriage; his son came one day before the marriage and attended the marriage; at that time, he was working at Bangalore, and he was not present four days before the marriage at the time of making dowry payment. Thus, all the witnesses mentioned above clearly deposed falsehood concerning PW.8's presence at the time of payment of the dowry amount. Thus, it is clear that they deposed an incorrect version regarding PW.8's presence at the time of the alleged payment of Rs.6, 00, 000.00 to the Defendant and his parents. It is a strong circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.2 to 4. 48. On the other hand, PW.3's evidence shows that he has no personal knowledge about the facts of the case. It is a strong circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.2 to 4. 48. On the other hand, PW.3's evidence shows that he has no personal knowledge about the facts of the case. In this regard, in the cross-examination, PW.3 testified that he was not present at the time of the fixation of the marriage; he did not remember the date of fixing the marriage date; twenty days before the fixation of the marriage, he knew about the settlement of marriage, and he heard the same from the villagers; one week before his knowledge, the marriage proposal was fixed; he was invited to the marriage by giving a marriage card, by giving four days before the marriage; he also heard four days before the marriage from Sambasivarao (PW.2) and others that eight sovereigns of gold to be given to the Defendant at the time of marriage and the above talks were not settled before him. It disproves the Plaintiff's version about PW.3's presence at the time of the alleged payment of the dowry amount. The PW.3's evidence in the cross-examination clearly shows that he has no personal knowledge about the settlement of the marriage, and the PW.3's evidence regarding the payment of dowry in his presence is not believable and trustworthy in light of the above elicitations made in the cross-examination. 49. Coming to the evidence of PW.5 (Gottipati Seshu Babu), he has given a different version by deposing that the marriage was fixed at Pasumarru; the terms of marriage regarding dowry and other things were also fixed at that time. In this regard, PW.1 testified that her marriage was settled through the marriage bureau at Chilakaluripeta. PW.2 testified that the marriage broker arranged the marriage, Padmavathi of Chilakaluripeta in May 2009; after four days, he along with Gadipudi Kistaiah, Gottipati Ramanjaneyulu, Emparala Raghavarao, Gottipati Seshubabu, Gottipati Srihari Raju along with five others, went to the Defendant's house to see him and they agreed to give their daughter in marriage to him; the dowry and other terms of marriage were fixed after seeing the Defendant in his house one week before fixation of marriage. It is the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that on the date of marriage, one gold chain, one bracelet and one ring, total gold weighing about eight sovereigns, were presented to the Defendant; the cash and gold ornaments given by PW.2 to the PW.1's benefit and they were handed over to the Defendant. Though Defendant has chosen to cross-examine the witnesses on the payment of dowry amount, nothing was elicited in the cross-examination to discredit their evidence concerning the presentation of gold ornaments as contended in the plaint. 50. Conversely, PW.1 provided testimony indicating the existence of evidence supporting the presentation of articles, specifically referencing a copy of a photograph with a CD. During cross-examination, no evidence was presented to undermine PW.1's testimony regarding the CD. The assertion that a gold chain, bracelet, and ring, totalling about eight sovereigns of gold, were given to Defendant at the time of the marriage is supported by visible photographs depicting the act. Although PW.1 did not recall the photographer's name, no evidence was introduced to disprove the consistent testimony of PWs.1 and 2, especially regarding the document marked as Ex.A.6. 51. DW.1's father, Gandru Sambasiva Rao, examined as DW.2, along with DW.1, did not provide any explanation for the photograph under Ex.A.6. The trial Court rightly accepted the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the presentation of gold ornaments, and there is no compelling reason to overturn this finding. While it was not explicitly stated in the plaint, DW.2 admitted in cross-examination that he was unaware of the divorce obtained by PW.1 against DW.1. In response, DW.1 denied having receipts for the jewellery given to the Plaintiff and disputed the suggestion that the video coverage of the marriage function showed the presentation of gold to him. However, DW.1 failed to present convincing evidence to dispute the credibility of the photograph with CD (Ex.A.6). DW.1 also acknowledged that Plaintiff had filed a divorce petition against him, contested it, and received notice of the granted divorce. Notably, neither party submitted a copy of the divorce petition or order, making it essential to clarify the grounds raised by Plaintiff in her divorce petition from the available records. 52. The Plaintiff did not explicitly claim a refund of the marriage expenses in the plaint. Notably, neither party submitted a copy of the divorce petition or order, making it essential to clarify the grounds raised by Plaintiff in her divorce petition from the available records. 52. The Plaintiff did not explicitly claim a refund of the marriage expenses in the plaint. However, during D.W.1's cross-examination, which remains uncontested by the other party, it was revealed that PW.1's parents covered the marriage expenses, with DW.1 acknowledging that generally, girls' marriages take place at their parents' houses. Although DW.1 stated that elders arranged his marriage without any mediators, PW.2 contradicted this claim, asserting that he incurred Rs.1, 60, 000.00 to purchase gold ornaments. PW.1 mentioned in cross-examination that her parents spent Rs.1, 00, 000.00 on marriage expenses. Despite PW.1's admission of incurring marriage expenses by PW.2, since there was no claim for the refund of marriage expenses, such a relief is not to be considered. Given these circumstances, it becomes difficult to accept DW.1's contention that, out of the Rs.5, 52, 000.00 withdrawn from the bank, they made a dowry payment of Rs.6, 00, 000.00, purchased gold ornaments worth Rs.1, 77, 000.00, and covered the marriage expenses. Although PW.1 admitted to incurring marriage expenses, the absence of a specific claim for their refund prevents the Court from granting such a relief. The Court found it reasonable to conclude that Plaintiff could establish the presentation of gold ornaments worth Rs.1, 77, 000.00 to Defendant at the time of marriage. 53. It is not the case that the Defendant had returned the said gold ornaments. In the facts of the case, this Court finds that the trial Court is justified in directing the Defendant to pay Rs.1, 77, 000.00 to the Plaintiff towards the presentation of gold ornaments to him. This Court views that the oral evidence adduced regarding the payment of the dowry amount is inconsistent. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is not inspiring confidence as they deposed an incorrect version regarding the presence of PW.8 at the time of payment of the dowry amount. The Plaintiff's specific case is that they withdrew the amounts from the bank to pay the dowry amount. As already observed, Plaintiff and their family members had withdrawn Rs.5, 52, 000.00; they incurred a considerable amount towards purchasing gold ornaments to give to Defendant, and they also incurred the marriage expenses. The Plaintiff's specific case is that they withdrew the amounts from the bank to pay the dowry amount. As already observed, Plaintiff and their family members had withdrawn Rs.5, 52, 000.00; they incurred a considerable amount towards purchasing gold ornaments to give to Defendant, and they also incurred the marriage expenses. The possibility of incurring some amount out of Rs.5, 52, 000.00 towards their marriage expenses cannot be ruled out. In the facts, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff and her family members paid the dowry amount of Rs.6, 00, 000.00 by withdrawing from the bank. This Court makes it clear that the evidence adduced by Plaintiff lacked credibility, especially considering the inconsistent statements and the incorrect version about PW.8's presence during the alleged dowry payment. As such, this Court views that it is not justifiable to direct the Defendant to pay Rs.6, 00, 000.00 along with interest towards the dowry amount. 54. This Court concurs with the trial court's findings regarding the payment of Rs.1, 77, 000.00 towards gold ornaments and upheld the decree in that regard. However, this Court differs on the issue of the dowry amount. 55. As a result, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed without costs by setting aside the Decree and Judgment dtd. 28/7/2014 passed in O.S. No.398 of 2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, concerning the amount of Rs.7, 60, 000.00 with costs towards payment of dowry amount. The Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court are confirmed with proportionate costs concerning the payment of Rs.1, 77, 000.00 towards gold ornaments presented to the Defendant with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the decree passed by the trial Court till the date of realization. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, in this Appeal Suit, shall stand cancelled.