A 4 which it was claimed the plaintiff had given acknowledging receipt of the jewellery.
The Trial Court held, that the receipt was number genuine and with that view the High Court agreed.
Again similarity of names of individual pieces of jewellery companymonly used by women in well to do families in Ext.
1 and 7 and also made a numbere on the same in his own hand with respect to the deposit of the, ornaments.
Put from the presence of the plaintiff at Kanpur on April 23, 1942.
It is true that the testimony of Dr.Mohan Lal who stated that he had medically treated the plaintiff on the 22nd and 23rd of April 1942 at Jhansi was found by the Trial Court to be unreliable, and the record of his Dispensary, untrustworthy.
to Shyamabai goes against the case of the appellant.
The appellant, however, submitted that the jewellery was returned to the plaintiff by Lachmi Narain on April 23, 1942.
But the appellant also relied upon the following circumstances which he claimed established his plea On receiving a telegram on April 20, 1942, froth Lachhmi Narain, the plaintiff and her son in law Radha Kishen proceeded to Kanpur and remained in that town till April 23, 1942.
I do number think that the plaintiff return the ornament even if they had number been returned.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 18, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
The burden of proving that case lay upon the appellant In support of that case the appellant relied upon a receipt Ext.
It was number the case of the plaintiff that she entrusted, the jewellery to Lachhmi Narain in the steel box shestated that the jewellery was handed over to Lachhmi Narain in baskets, and she carried the empty steel box with her to Jhansi.
The receipt was number relied upon by the appellant before this Court.
The plaintiff then instituted an action against Sita Ram, his son Ghanshyam and other members of the family, in the Court of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur, for a decree ordering delivery of the jewellery or for payment of its value.
The High Court held that these circumstances did number assist the case of the appellant, and we agree with the High Court in that view.
A 2, and in the list of jewellery some items of jewellery entrusted by the plaintiff to Lachhmi Narain are included That the plaintiff did number make a demand for the jewellery during the lifetime of Lachhmi Narain and for two years thereafter.
The Trial Court dismissed the action.upholding the case of the appellant that the jewellery was returned to the plaintiff by Lachhmi Narain on April 23, 1942.
The plaintiffs case that on April 5, 1942 she entrusted to Lachhmi Narain her jewellery described in the plaint was number denied by the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No.
Against that decree, this appeal is preferred with certificate granted by the High Court, Ghanshyam who was at all material times a minor died unmarried during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and his name has been struck off.
In appeal, the High Court of Allahabad reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court and passed a decree directing that the jewellery be restored to the plaintiff within one month from the date of decree, and in the event of failure to companyply with that direction the appellant and his son Ghanshyam to pay Rs.
961 of 1964.
What the plaintiff number wants to claim really belonged to her son Ram Sewak and after him for life, to his widow Musammat Gomti Bai.
the plaintiff on, April 15, 1942 deposited her jewellery with Lachhmi Narain and got a writing in respect of the deposit of the ornaments by Shyania Charan and Priya Charan in the presence of and in companysultation with defendants Nos.
The letter Ext.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Lachhmi Narain father of Sitaram appellant in this appeal was the brother of Radhabai respondent herein.
32,379/6/ to Lachhmi Narain for safe custody.
That on the plaintiffs admission, the steel box in which the jewellery was taken from Jhansi to Kanpur was even at the date of the trial with the plaintiff , That the plaintiff sent some jewellery to her daughter Shyamabai with the letter Ext.
162 of 1947.
The plaintiff stated that she proceeded to Kanpur on receiv ing a telegram from Lachhmi Narain that the padlock of her house at Rail Bazar, Kanpur, was broken, and that she returned to Jhansi by the evening train leaving Kanpur for Jhansi She stated that the jewellery was number returned to her by Lachhmi, Narain.
P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellant.
After the death of Lachhmi Narain in July 1943, the appellant was called upon by the plaintiff to return that jewellery.
The appellant replied that Lachmi Narain had during his life time returned the jewellery to the plaintiff.
