AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J
The Plaintiff having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the present second appeal before this Court. The facts of the case are quite complicated. I find it appropriate to extract the same from the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Doda, where these have been summarized as under:-
"The brief facts of the suit before the trial court was that appellant/plaintiff at the time of his marriage with the daughter of respondent No. 4 borrowed some property from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Hari Saran and Maya Ram. The property was comprising the ornaments, i.e., Bugadi alongwith Anam with Mall-dori and Tilla and six golden Bugadian weighing two tollas, one number of golden Bulak measuring three massa and also six silver rings in which two rings contain five gungroos, each weighing twenty four tolas. This property was taken in order to offer and deliver the property to the appellant's wife as dowry with the condition that after marriage the said ornaments/property would be delivered back to defendant/respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent No. 4-Mst. Baru (mother-in-law of the appellant) was having knowledge of the borrowing of the said ornaments by the appellants/plaintiff from respondents/defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The ornaments/property were offered and provided to the appellant's wife at the time of marriage. The ornaments were retained by defendant No. 4-Mst. Baru on the ground that she would not part away with the ornaments unless the appellant/plaintiff provides the same kind of ornaments to her daughter. The ornaments so borrowed could be handed over to the appellant/plaintiff for its unwards delivery to respondents/defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent-Bootu Ram in the meantime lodged an FIR in the Police Station, Doda in regard to theft of his ornaments in his house at Gagla. FIR No. 102/83 U/Ss 457/380 RPC was registered.
On pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:-
"(i) Whether the articles mentioned in the plaint, were seized, by the Police Station, Doda, in First Information Report No. 102/1983, under Sections 457 and 380 RPC and the same were recovered from the house of Mst. Baru-defendant No. 4? O.P.P.
(ii) In case, Issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative, whether the articles mentioned in the plaint were borrowed by the plaintiff from defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on the day of his marriage for his wife and the same were retained by defendant No. 4, on the ground that the said articles will be returned, provided the plaintiff replaces the said articles of the same weight? O.P.P.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff, had made an application to the Additional Inspector General of Police, Jammu and the same was forwarded to SP, Doda, vide his No. 20245/GIB dated 16.12.83, and the same was received by the said S.P on 108.12.83, who assured the plaintiff, that the matter will be investigated and the challan was presented in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20.12.83 and on 22.12.83, the defendant No. 5 was convicted, on his confession made before the Court? O.P.P.
(iv) Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda has not passed any order, in regard to the disposal of the seized property? O.P.P.
(v) Whether the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of the parties? O.P.D.
(vi) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled? O.P.P."
As far as the first issue is concerned, the learned courts below have recorded a definite finding that the civil litigation generated was an afterthought after registration of a criminal case. The conviction in that case was upheld upto this Court. Entire material has been proved on record in the criminal case that the police had seized the articles from the house of Mst. Baru-defendant No. 4 in the plaint. In the light of the aforesaid facts being on record with no contrary evidence led, there is no error in the finding recorded by the courts below on that.
As far as second issue is concerned, the same did not survive, in fact as the language of the issue is such. It was in case the issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative. The plaintiff wanted to prove that he had borrowed these ornaments from the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Krishna Devi w/o respondent No. 2 stated before the Court that the ornaments, which were shown to her in Court were not the same, which were borrowed from her husband by the plaintiff. Even defendant No. 2 stated that he never approached the police or the Court, claiming that the police had seized his ornaments. No suit had been instituted by him. The appellant/plaintiff sought to claim that the ornaments were owned by the defendant No. 2. Once no evidence was led by the appellant/plaintiff to prove the issue, the finding recorded thereon cannot be said to be erroneous.
On issue No. 3, the appellant/plaintiff did not lead any evidence. Hence, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the court below on that issue. Similar is the position with regard to other issues framed.
Even at the time of hearing before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant had not been able to refer to any evidence, which had been produced on record by him, which had either been misread or not considered by the courts below. Rather from the facts on record, if it clearly evident that it is a litigation, which is totally frivolous, filed after registration of a criminal case. Idea may be to misdirect the criminal proceedings, in which the appellant/plaintiff has miserably failed.
No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.