Sunita @ Sudesh vs Kapil Dev And Ors.
1990 Latest Caselaw 66 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Sapra, J.

(1) By the present order, I propose to diploes off an application/filed by plaintiff, under Order 12, Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, there by praying that, in view of the admissions, made by defendants, the suit be partly decreed, thereby, directing defendants, to return the moveable property, as described in Annexure-K.

(2) Briefly, the facts, as stated in the plaint, are as under :- The marriage, between plaintiff and defendant No. I, wai solemnised, according to Hindu rites, on April 20. 1980, at New Delhi. The parties lived together, as husband and wife and, a son, named Rajiv, was born the from the wedlock, on May 1, 1981. The child is in the care and custody of plaintiff.

(3) The marriage, between plaintiff and defendant No. I, could not go on smoothly, on account, of misconduct of defendant no. 1. Defendant No. 1 filed a petition, for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu, Marriage Act, 1955, on November 10, 1982.

(4) However, after filing of the written statement, following compromise was arrived at, between the parties, before the Matrimonial Court : "I had beaten my wife Mrs. Aarti on 16'-5-1982 due to misunderstanding between us. After this, I took her with me and came to my in-laws house. I took our ornaments which were put on by her on the same night. Police was called and a letter by me and my spouse too. The letter was written by both of us on one paper. Next morning, I took my other ornaments. Now I am giving this promise to my in-laws and my wife that no untoward behavior will take place again and I shall keep her in a proper way. A legal action may be taken against me if I quarrel with her in future. On the basis of above promise, I, am taking my wife with me and she agrees to accompany me. sd/- Kapil Dev 17-5-1982 As per promise, I agree on my own to accompany my husband Mr. Kapil Dev and promise to respect him provided be behaves with me properly and does not quarrel with me. sd/- Aarti 17-5-1982"

(5) Defendant No. 1, then, gave an undertaking to the Matrimonial Court, for his good behavior and also, gave assurance to plaintiff, that he would not beat her in future. Under these circumstances, the divorce petition was then dropped by defendant no. 1. In spite of written assurance, given by defendant No. I, he still repeated the same and misbehave, over and over again. Plaintiff, was thus, constrained to leave the matrimonial home in her wearing clothes, on November 5, 1983, and she continues to live with her parents, along with her child, till the filing of the suit.

(6) Plaintiff is a woman of dignity, as, she is a responsible Government officer and, defendant No.1's eroticism and idiosyncrasy have put plaintiff several times, in public humiliation. Plaintiff has filed various reports with the police, regarding the acts of violence, of defendant no. 1. Defendant no I has. also not agreed to look after the child or enquire about him. He is completely neglecting his obligations towards the family.

(7) With a view to harass plaintiff, defendant no. I again filed a false and frivolous petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, against plaintiff, on the ground of cruelty. Plaintiff has resisted the divorce petition, on the ground that defendant no. 1, was guilty of having treated her with cruelty and that, therefore, he was not entitled to the relief, in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(8) It is further alleged in the plaint, that on account of maltreatment and acts of cruelty, committed by defendant no. I, plaintiff has every justification to live away, from defendant no. 1. As a matter of fact, plaintiff has tried her best, to make a success of the marriage, and it was only on account of the repeated acts of misconduct, misbehavior and oppression, on the part of defendant No. I, plaintiff has been constrained to leave the matrimonial home.

(9) At the time of marriage, parents of plaintiff, gave dowry, consisting of household items, personal wares, jewellery and gifts, to defendants. list of such items is annexure P.4.

(10) Apart from the items, as mentioned in annexure P-4, plaintiff's parents, also gave jewellery, weighing 186 grams. Out of this jewellery, plaintiff was wearing a chain, when she left the matrimonial home. This chain weighed about 7 grams. Thus, the total value of the jewellery, given by plaintiff's parents, and now with defendants, is valued about Rs. 35,800.00 . List of the jewellery is Annexure P-5.

(11) Plaintiff was also given jewellery and sarees etc. by defendant No. l's parents. Out of the jewellery, so given by defendants, plaintiff was wearing two bangles only. when she left the matrimonial home. Rest of the jewellery, weighing about 67 grams, is still with defendants. The market value of the jewellery and the sarees is Rs. 20,500.00 . List is annexure P. 6.

(12) The jewellery and other gifts, given to plaintiff,by her parents and/or in-laws are Stridhan, and she has exclusive right therein.

(13) Even, after the marriage, parents of plaintiff, continued to give to plaintiff, on different occasions, various gifts, details of which are given in annexure P-7.

(14) Plaintiff has been working throughout, and from her savings, she made purchases, like T.V., washing machine, cutlery household items jewellery and sarees, which are also in possession and control of defendant No. 1. The value of such items is Rs. 7,580.00 , as given in annexure P.8. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 is obliged to provide maintenance to his son, who is now in care and custody of plaintiff. Plaintiff has spent about Rs. 8,000.00 , so far, on the education and upbringing of the child, which amount defendant no. I is liable to pay to plaintiff.

(15) Thus, plaintiff has valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee, at Rs. 1,04,060.00 .

(16) For these reasons, plaintiff has claimed a decree, thereby, directing defendants, to hand over and deliver the articles, as detailed in annexures P. 3 to P. 8. In the alternative, a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,04,060.00 , has been prayed for by plaintiff. Plaintiff has also claimed reasonable and just amount, by way of maintenance for the child.

(17) In his written statement, defendant no. I has raised various preliminary objections, such as, that, plaintiff is stopped from making contradictory and contrary statements; suit is bad for non-joinder of causes of action and that, plaint is liable to be rejected, under Order 7. Rule I I and Order 2 Rule 2(2) of Civil Procedure Code. It is also alleged by defendant no. I that suit has been valued arbitrarily, with a view to bring the same, within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.

(18) On merits, defendant no. I has denied that plaintiff left the matrimonial home, in her wearing clothes only. On the contrary, plaintiff left the matrimonial home, on November 5, 1983, and took away the various articles, valued at Rs. 10.100.00 , as mentioned in para7ofthe written statement.

(19) Defendant No. I has further denied that plaintiff's parents, gave jewellery, weighing 186 grams, and that she was wearing a chain, weighing 7 grams, when she had left the matrimonial home on November 5, 1983. On the contrary, plaintiff had been wearing a chain, weighing about 10 grams, which plaintiff took away with her, on the day, she left. Defendant No. I has also denied that the jewellery, as mentioned in the plaint, is with defendants. In fact, plaintiff removed all items of dowry, household goods, jewellery and gifts etc, from the house of defendants, when plaintiff and defendant no. I shifted, under coercion of plaintiff, to a rented accommodation, in Old Rajinder Nagar. Plaintiff kept jewellery, costumes and other articles, at her parents house.

(20) Defendant no. I has also claimed set off, on the ground that plaintiff is in possession of costumes, cash and other articles of defendants. Defendant no. I, has also filed the list of items, annexure D. 3 to D. 7.

(21) In their written statement, defendants 2 and 3 have raised various preliminary objections, identical to those of defendant no. 1.

(22) In the present application, plaintiff has asserted that she has given details of her Stridhan,in various lists, annexures P. 4 to P. 7. Defendants have also filed lists, thereby admitting possession of some of the items, out of the lists filed by plaintiff. As, plaintiff has prayed for return of specific articles of her Stridhan, including moveable property, so, in law, defendants have deemed to had admitted, part of the claim of plaintiff, which. has to be decreed.

(23) In reply, defendants have denied that any admission has been made, as alleged, by plaintiff.

(24) Mr. Behl, learned counsel for defendants, has urged that plaintiff has fixed an aggregated value of the suit, for purposes of jurisdiction & court- fee, with a view to bring the same, within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. The objection of defendants is, that plaintiff has included a sum of Rs. 8,000.00 , on account of arrears of maintenance of the child, to bring the valuation at Rs. l,04,060.00 . As, under law, no such claim of Rs. 8,000.00 can be made, so, the present suit cannot be entertained by this Court. Further, as against the valuation of Rs. 96,060.00 for the alleged articles, the value of the articles, actually left behind by plaintiff, is Rs. 10,970.00 .

(25) Mr. Behl, thus, contends that, as, this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction, so, the present application cannot be decided, unless the question, with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court is determined. He has placed reliance upon the judgment in Official Trustee, West Bengal and Others v. Sachindra Nath Chatterji and another .

IN West Bengal Trustee and Others' case, it was held : "FROM the above discussion it is clear that before a Court can be held to have jurisdiction to decide a particular matter it must not only have jurisdiction to try the suit brought but must also have the authority to pass the orders sought for. It is not sufficient that it has some jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of the suit. Its jurisdiction must include the power to hear and decide the questions at issue, the authority to hear and 282 decide the particular controversy that has arisen between the parties. Therefore the fact that Ramfry, J, had jurisdiction to pass certain orders either under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, or under the Official Trusts Act, 1913 or under the Trustees and Mortgagees Powers Act, 1866 or under his inherent power is not conclusive of the matter. What is relevant is whether he had the power to grant the relief asked for in the application made by the settlor. That we think is the essence of the matter. It cannot be disputed that if it is held that the learned Judge bad competence to pronounce on the issue presented for his decision then the fact that be decided that issue illegally or incorrectly is wholly besides the point. See Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey . Therefore we have now to see whether the learned Judge had jurisdiction to decide the issue presented for his determination. The relief prayed for, as seen earlier, was to permit the settlor to revoke particular clauses in the Trust deed and to authorise him to alter the quantum of interest given to each of the beneficiaries by a deed inter vivos. Had the learned Judge jurisdiction to entertain those pleas?"

(26) As far as, the facts of the present case are concerned, plaintiff has valued the suit, for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee, at Rs. l,04,060.00 . Advalorem court-fee has been paid by plaintiff. Plaintiff has also included a sum of Rs. 8,000.00 , in the valuation, on account of the amount, spent by her, on the education and bringing up of the child, on the ground, that it was the obligation of defendant no I to pay these expenses. Whether, there are any merits or not, it will be seen after the trial. As, plaintiff has valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee at Rs. l,04,060.00 , and has paid advalorem court-fee on that therefore, prima facie. lam of the view that there is no defect in the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee.

(27) Now, the question, which arises for decision, is, whether, within the meaning of Order 12, Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, defendants have made admissions of fact. in their written statements, with regard to the claims of plaintiff.

ORDER12 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code reads as under :-

"5.Judgment on admissions-(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, made such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admission.

(2)Whenever a judgment is pronounced under Sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced."

MRS.CHANDERMobini Chopra, learned counsel for plaintiff, has contended that plaintiff has given details of her Stridban, in various lists, which are annexures P. 4 to P. 7. In the annexures, so filed by defendant no. 1, there is clear admission on the part of defendant no.1, that certain articles, belonging to plaintiff, are in his possession.

(28) MR.BEHL, learned counsel for defendant, on the other hand, has urged that, under law, the pleadings should be read, as a whole, and the alleged admission cannot be read in isolation. He has placed reliance upon the judgments in Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy v. Mulji Haridas A.I.R. 1915 Privy Council, 2; Indermal Tekaji Mahajan v. Ramprasad Gopilal and another and State Bank v. Midland industries 1987 R.L.R. (Note) 59.

(29) In Indermal Tekaji Mahajan (supra), tha Divilion Bench held : ".....IT isplain that the principle illustrated above is that, if a written statement incorporates an admmission of some facts favorable to the plaintiff and a denial of certain other facts favorable to him or an assertion of still other facts which are unfavorable to him, he (plaintiff) must, if he wants to take advantage of the admission, take not only the first set of facts as truly stated but also the second set of facts as so stated. But the principle is limited in application to facts and does not embrace within its ambit any plea of law raised by the defendant on the cumulative effect of the two sets of facts. We would show in the following paragraphs that the conclusion reached by the lower Court can be supported on this basis.

IT is now well established that where an alternative case, which the plaintiff could have made, but did not make in the plaint, is admitted by the defendant in his written statement, it is permissible to grant to the plaintiff relief on that basis. So, in firm Shrinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad . Mukherjee J. (as he then was) held : "THE rule undoubtedly is that the Court cannot grant relief to the plaintiff on a case for which there was no foundation in the pleadings and which the other aide was not called upon or had an opportunity to meet. But when the alternative case, which the plaintiff could have made, was not only admitted by the defendant in his written statement but was expressly put forward as an answer to the claim which the plaintiff made in the suit, there would be nothing improper in giving the plaintiff a decree upon the case which the defendant himself makes. A demand of the plaintiff baud on the defendant's own plea cannot possible be regarded with surprise by the letter and no question of adducing evidence on these facts would arise when they were expressly admitted by the defendant in his pleadings."

(30) In para 12 of the written, statement filed by defendant no. 1, there is a specific averment, statement to the following effect :- "HOWEVER,out of the alleged and exaggerated items of dowry arbitrarily valued on a very high side and stated to have been given to the plaintiff by her parents, the number of items actually given and those left behind by her on 5-11-1983 at the matrimonial home and which are in the possession of the defendant are shown in annexure D. 3."

In the same para, it is further stated that the articles, under columns no. 2 and 7, at serial Nos. 1, 2, 20, 21 and 23, of annexure D. 3, are for exclusive use of plaintiff, and rest of the articles, are meant for joint use of plaintiff and defendant No. 1.

(31) While, denying the allegations, in the corresponding paras of the plaint, defendant no. I, in para 14 of his written statement, has stated that the total value of the sarees, left behind by plaintiff, is not more than Rs. 670.00 , as against the value of Rs. 6,100.00 , claimed by plaintiff, in annexure P.6. The full details, have been given by defendant no. 1 in annexure D. 4.

(32) In para 16 of the written statement, there are following averments: "A comparative list showing the alleged number of gifts given to the plaintiff by her parents after her marriage as stated in annexure P. 7. the number actually given to her and the articles out of them left behind by the plaintiff on 5th November, 1983 and the present value thereof is at annexure D. 5."

(33) Defendant no. I has also alleged that, after the marriage, certain items were purchased by him, from his own saving/income and the same have been shown in annexure D. 6.

(34) In annexure D. 3, defendant no. 1 has given the details of the articles, which were given, by way of gifts, to plaintiff, and left behind by her, when she left the house. According to this statement, following articles, were left behind: 1. Sarees plus blouses and petticoats and suits 2. Wedding Duppatta 1 3. Beds 2 4. Dressing table 1 5. Sofa Set 3 Pcs. 6. Dining Table 1 7. Centre Table 1 8. Almirah 1 9. Trunk Nil 10. Mattresses 2 11. Sewing machine 1 12. Daries Nil 13. Bed covers 4 Nos. 14. Table cloth Nil 15. Air Bag Nil 16. Pillows 2 17. Picnic set Nil 18. Room heater Nil 19. Utencils a. Pressure cooker 1 b. Milk Boiler 1 c. Dhoungas 4 d. Glass 6 e. Plates 4 f. Katories 6 g. Tray 1 h. Rice Plate 1 i. Spoons 4 j. Handalium karabi 1 20. Night Gown 1 21. Shawls 1 22. Blankets 1pair 23. Skivvies 1

(35) Defendant no. I has admitted that the articles at serial Nos.l, 2, 20, 21 and 23 of annexure D. 3, are for exclusive use of plaintiff. The other items, according to defendant no. l,are meant for joint use of plaintiff and defendant No. 1. However, defendant No. I has not disputed that all these articles, as shown in annexure D. 3, were given to plaintiff, as gifts, at the time of marriage.

(36) As per annexure D. 4, the following articles, which had been given to plaintiff, as gifts, by the in-laws, were left behind : Sarees with blouses and petticoats

(37) In Annexure D. 5, defendant no. I has given the details of the articles, which bad been given to plaintiff, by her parents, after the marriage. According to defendant no. I, following articles, were left behind by plaintiff: 1. Sarees with blouses 2 2. Bed cover 1 pair 3. Steel Glass 8 4. Bait! (Brass) 1 5. Transistor 1 6. Cardigan & one shawl 2

(38) Defendant no. 1 has given the details of articles, in annexure D. 6, which were allegedly purchased by him. Annexure D. 7 contains the details of the articles, allegedly belonging to defendants, but are in possession of plaintiff.

(39) In VinodKumar Sethi and others v.State of Punjab and another. 1982 Hindu Law Reporter, Vol. 8. page 327, the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, held that a Hindu wife could own property in her own right. It was further held :

"NOW once it is so held that articles of dowry and traditional presents given at the wedding are owned by the bride individually in her own right, then one fails to see how by the mere fact or her bringing the same into her husband's or parents-in-law's household, would forthwith divest her of the ownership thereof. Separate and individual right to property of the wife therein cannot vanish into thin air the moment the threshold of the matrimonial home is crossed. To say that at that point of time she would cease to own such property altogether and the title therein would pass to her husband or in any case she would lose half of her right therein and become merely a joint owner of the same, with the family of her husband does not appear to me as even remotely unwarranted either by the statute, principles or logic. No such marriage hazard against the wife can be implied in law. Once she owns property exclusively, she would continue to hold and own it as such despite marriage and coverture and the factum of entering the matrimonial home. The second part of Mr. Thapar's argument, therefore, is equally unsustainable......... ......I am afraid that even this line of distinction sought to be drawn with regard to the articles of dowry which are for the common use and enjoyment by the couple also cannot be accepted as general proposition. Though at the initial flush the argument has a tinge of plausibility, a closer analysis would reveal it fallacy. What may be kept in mind is that the dowry and the traditional presents given to a bride in a Hindu wedding may usually be put in three categories as under :-

(I)Property intended for exclusive use of the bride, e.g. her personal jewellery and wearing apparel etc. ;

(II)Articles of dowry which may be for common use and enjoyment in the matrimonial home ;

(III)Articles given as presents to the husband or the parents-in-law and other members of his family.

OBVIOUSLY as regards the third category those presents and gifts intended for the husband or his relations after delivery would pass into their ownership and may well ceases to be the property of the bride. This would be so also as the traditional presents etc. gives by the husband and parents-in-law to the bride at or about the time of wedding would pass into her ownership. Similarly as regards the first category of articles meant for the exclusive use of the bride, she would reliant her pristine ownership therein irrespective of her entry and presence in the matrimonial home or that of her parents-in-law. As regard category (ii) it is purely a question of fact whether the articles of common use and enjoyment were given and intended to be the exclusive property of the bride or otherwise. I am inclined to the view that the normal presumption would be that the ownership in such life articles would vest 287 in the Hindu wife unless it can be clearly established to the contrary that these were given expressly for the joint ownership of the couple. Dowry of this nature would be commonly used and enjoyed with the implied and license of the wife Mere joint enjoyment thereof does not necessarily divest a Hindu wife or her exclusive ownership or to make it joint property by the mere factum of such user. This seems to be soon general principles of law. An individual owner of property, apart from a Hindu wife, may well allow the use of the property jointly by others. But that by itself cannot divest him of the ownership or make a licensee joint owner forthwith. 1. therefore, see no reason how a Hindu wife is to be treated invidiously and on a different plane from any other of property in this context. Indeed the nature of article, whether meant for exclusive or common use, seems hardly relevant to the question of ownership therein. It was rightly contended on behalf of the respondent State that mere joint user and enjoyment cannot make the husband a joint owner of the property if it originally belonged to the wife strictly. The valid submission herein was that joint user or enjoyment be rein must be deemed to be with the express and implied leave and license of the owner, namely, the wife and the moment she revokes such a leave or license then any such claim to joint use and enjoyment would obviously come to an end. The break-down of the marriage or the splitting np of the matrimonial home would inevitably involve the revocation of such leave and license by the wife thus resuscitating her right to exclusive possession."

(40) Defendant No. I, in annexure D. 3, filed by him with within statements, has admitted that the articles, mentioned therein, were given to plaintiff, at the time of marriage. Thus, in may view, plaintiff is owner of the articles, so given to her, by way of traditional gifts, at the time of marriage. Defendant No. I has further admitted the various articles, left behind by her and, which are in the possession of defendant no 1. According to defendant no. 1, the articles, shown at serial Nos. 1, 2, 20, 21 and 23 of annexure D. 3, were for exclusive use of plaintiff, while, rest of the articles, were meant for joint use of plaintiff and defendant no. 1.

(41) In other words, defendant no. I has not alleged that, the articles were given jointly to plaintiff and defendant no. 1, but has alleged that certain articles, were for joint use of the couple. The articles, which ar,e admittedly for the exclusive use of plaintiff, and were given to her, at the time of marriage, are to be delivered to plaintiff, by defendant no. 1. As plaintiff is the owner of these articles, so, even, the use by defendant no. I, was with the leave and license of plaintiff.

(42) This is a question of fact as to whether, the articles, as alleged by defendant no. I, were given for joint use. But, there arc certain articles, which from their very nature, suggest that these were not given for joint use. Even otherwise, as, plaintiff had left the house in November, 1983, the license for joint use stood revoked. Out of the articles, as mentioned in annexure D. 3, besides the articles, admittedly for exclusive use, of plaintiff I find that the articles, mentioned at serial Nos. 3,4,11,13 and 19 i.e bed (1). dressing table (1), Sewing machine (1), Bed Covers (2 pcs) and utencils, (details given in annexure D. 3), are to be delivered back to plaintiff.

(43) Similarly, in annexure D. 4, defendant no. I has admitted that the articles, namely, Sarees with blouses and petticoats, 3 in number, shown at serial No. I had been given to plaintiff by the in-laws, and arc in possession of defendants No. 1. Defendant no. I is liable to hand over these plaintiff.

(44) In the like manner, the articles shown in annexure D. 5, which had been given to plaintiff, by her parents, after marriage, are owned by plaintiff and are to be delivered to her by defendant no. 1. Out of this list the articles, which are admittedly in possession of defendant no. I and are for exclusive use of plaintiff, have to be returned. These articles are : Sarees with blouses (two in number).

(45) With regard to the other articles, as mentioned in annexure D. 6, there is no admission, on the part of defendant no. 1. On the contrary, it is alleged that defendant no. I acquired to same.

(46) It is not disputed that plaintiff is residing separately, from her husband, since November, 1983. The only child, is also living with her. Moreover, defendant no. 1, filed a petition, for dissolution of marriage, by a decree of divorce, under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in November, 1982. There was a compromise and the petition was withdrawn. Plaintiff also lodged various reports, with the police against, defendants. Defendant no. I. also filed another petition, for dissolution of marriage, on the ground of cruelty, against plaintiff.

(47) All this shows that the marriage has broken down, though, there arc judicial separation, between plaintiff and defendant no. 1.

(48) Under there circumstances, I am of the view, that the suit is liable to be partly decreed, for recovery of the specific moveable properties as mentioned above, on the basis of the admission of defendant no. I and direction is to be given to defendant no. 1, to deliver these articles to plaintiff.

(49) However, the suit will proceed, with regard to the rest of the claims of plaintiff, as well as, set off of defendant no. 1.

(50) Under the facts and circumstance of the case, I pass a decree (with regard to part of the claim of plaintiff) in favor of plaintiff and against defendant no. I, for recovery of the specific moveable properties, and direct defendant no. I to deliver to plaintiff, the following articles : Item as per Annexure D. 3. Number of items Sarees plus blouses and petticoats and suits 6 Wedding Duppatta 1 Bed 1 Dressing Table 1 Sewing machine 1 Bed covers 2 pcs. Utencils a. Pressure cooker 1 b. Milk Boiler 1 c. Dhoungas 6 d. Glass 6 c. Plates 4 f. Katories 6 g. Tray 1 h. Rice plate 1 i. Spoons 4 j. Handloom karahi 1 Night Gown 1 Shawls 1 Skivvies 1 Item as per Annexure D. 4. Sarees with blouses and petticoats 3 Item as per Annexure D. 5. , Sarees with blouses 2

(51) The question, with regard to costs, shall be decided, at the time of final disposal of the suit. 1. A. 8399 of 1987 stands disposed off.