SALEEM AKHTAR LONGAI and anothers vs ABIDA SULTANA
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute between the parties, wherein the respondent filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles and bridal gifts following the dissolution of her marriage. The trial court decreed the suit in her favour, a decision subsequently upheld by both the appellate and revisional courts. The petitioners challenged these concurrent findings before the Supreme Court, primarily contending that the courts below erred in relying on a specific document (Exh. P.2) which the petitioner claimed was unsigned. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioners raised only questions of fact already concurrently decided against them by the lower courts, which had also relied on an admission made by the petitioner in a separate application (Exh. P.3) regarding his intent to return the articles. While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that even where a decree for the delivery of movable property does not specify an alternative monetary value, the executing court possesses the authority under the Code of Civil Procedure to address such matters during execution proceedings.
- Does an executing court have the power to order monetary compensation in lieu of the delivery of movable property even if the original decree did not specify an alternative amount?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding the possession of dowry articles?
- Order XXI Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. ' ABDUL QADEER CHAT JDHRY, J. --The petitioner No, 2 was married to the respondent on 3-2-1984.
2. Due to strained relations between the couple, the marriage was dissolved through a decree of the Court on 3-10-1988. On 19-5-1987, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioners for return of dowry articles and bridal gifts mentioned in the list Exh. P.
2. The suit was decreed in favour of respondent and against the petitioners. Their appeal and revision having been dismissed by the appellate and the revisional Courts, the petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 31-10-1992.
3. ' We have heard the petitioner No, 1 in person. He submitted that the Courts below have erred in relying upon the document Exh. P. 2 which was not signed by the petitioner. The petitioner has raised the question of fact. All the Courts have concurrently held that the articles belonging to the respondent have been retained by the petitioner. The Courts have also noticed the admission of the petitioner made in application Exh. P. 3 that he would return the articles. No point of law has been raised by the petitioner which needs examination by this Court. We see no merit in this petition.
4. ' Before concluding, we noticed that although no relief in term of money as an alternative is claimed by the respondent, in the suit nor an amount 9 has been fixed in the decree, to be paid as an, alternative to the delivery of movable property but the executing Court has such power inter alia, under Order XXI, rule 31, C.P.C. Which can be exercised in any of the eventualities mentioned in the aforesaid order.
5. ' The petition is dismissed with the above observation.