Surender Kumar Jain vs Jyoti & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5908 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                    Judgment Pronounced on: 24.12.2010


+           CS(OS) No.2115/2010

SURENDER KUMAR JAIN                             .....Plaintiff

                            - versus -


JYOTI & ANR.                                   ....Defendants


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff:      Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv.
                        with Mr. S.B.Sharma, Adv.
For the Defendants:      None.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                          No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                   No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                  No
   in Digest?

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.30,70,000/-. It is

alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was having a

live-in-relationship with defendant No.1 and they were

residing on the first floor of House No.2841, 1 st Floor, Gali

No.5, Regbarpura No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031, which

the plaintiff had taken on rent. It is also alleged that the

plaintiff invested in gold jewellery weighing about 1.5 kg.

and kept the same with defendant No.1. Silver ornaments

weighing about 1.0 kg. are also alleged to have been

purchased by the plaintiff and kept with defendant No.1.

The total value of the gold jewellery and silver ornament is

stated to be about Rs.30 lakhs. It is also alleged that the

plaintiff had kept Rs.70,000/- with defendant No.1 to meet

any emergency.

2. It is alleged that since differences arose between

the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the plaintiff stopped going

to the premises where defendant No.1 was residing though

all household expenses were being incurred by him and the

rent of the premises was also being paid by him.

3. According to the plaintiff on 9.9.2010 when he

visited the aforesaid premises at House No.2841, 1st Floor,

Gali No.5, Regbarpura No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, he found

the premises locked and came to know from the neighbours

that defendant No.1 had married a few days ago and had

left with defendant No.2, taking all costly household articles

with her. The plaintiff tried to contact defendant No.1 on

her mobile, but she did not respond. The plaintiff has

accordingly claimed a sum of Rs.30,70,000/- from the

defendants being the value of the gold and silver jewellery

and the cash which he had kept with her.

4. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte since they

did not appear despite service of summons upon them.

In his affidavit by way of evidence, the plaintiff has

supported, on oath, the case set up in the plaint and has

stated that defendant No.1 was living with him on the first

floor of House No.2841, 1st Floor, Gali No.5, Regbarpura

No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, which he had taken on rent

from one Sardar Paramjeet Singh. Two children are also

stated to have been born out of this relationship between

the plaintiff and defendant No.1. He further stated that he

purchased gold ornaments weighing about 1.5 kg. and silver

ornaments weighing about 1.0 kg and kept them with

defendant No.1, for safe custody, on account of the faith

and trust which he had in her and with a clear

understanding that the jewellery would be returned to him

as and when required by him. According to him, the total

cost of the jewellery articles is about Rs.30 lacs and

Ex.PW-1/A to PW-1/H are various bills whereby these

articles were purchased from two jewellers, namely, Goyal

Jewellers and Shri Om Jewellers. He has also stated that

since disputes arose between them, he stopped visiting the

premises where defendant No.1 was living and that since

February, 2008, he had been asking her to return the gold

and silver jewellery which was kept with her for safe

custody, but she has not returned the jewellery which he

had kept with her. He has also claimed that in November,

2007, he had kept cash amounting to Rs.70,000/- with

defendant No.1 in order to meet emergency. He further

stated on 9.9.2010 when he went to the premises which he

had taken on rent from Sardar Paramjeet Singh, he came to

know from neighbours that defendant No.1 had married few

days ago and had not left any address, removing all the

costly household and electronic items. He claimed that

defendant No.1 had run away with defendant No.2 along

with gold jewellery weighing 1.5 kg., silver ornaments

weighing 1.0 kg. and also the cash of Rs.70,000/- which he

had kept with her. Ex.PW-1/I to Ex.PW-1/Z-6 are stated to

be the photographs of defendant No.1 wearing the gold

jewellery on various occasions. Ex.PW-1/Z-7 is the

complaint alleged to have been lodged by plaintiff against

defendant No.1 at Police Station Gandhi Nagar.

Ex.PW-1/Z-9 is the copy of the legal notice sent by the

plaintiff to the Deputy Commissioner of Police through his

counsel vide postal receipt Ex.PW-1/Z-10 whereas Ex.PW-

1/Z-11 is the legal notice sent by him to defendant No.1 on

27.9.2010 requiring her to return gold jewellery weighing

1.5 kg. and silver ornaments weighing 1.0 kg. or in the

alternative pay an amount of Rs.30 lakhs to him. He also

claimed return of the cash of Rs.70,000/- from defendant

No.1.

5. I see no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted

deposition of the plaintiff. The bills/invoices Ex.PW-1/A to

PW-1/H show purchase of jewellery from time to time. The

name of the plaintiff has also been recorded as the

purchaser on these documents. The case of the plaintiff is

that the jewellery which he had kept with defendant No.1

has been sold by her, in order to purchase the flat in which

she is presently residing. Defendant No.1 had no right to

sell the jewellery, which the plaintiff had kept with her for

safe custody. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has

become entitled to recover Rs 30 lakhs from defendant No.1

being the value of the jewellery which he had kept with her.

He is also entitled to recover Rs. 70,000/- from defendant

No.1 being the cash which he had kept with her for safe

custody.

6. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs,

a decree for Rs.30,70,000/- with costs and pendente lite

and future interest at the rate of 6% is passed in favour of

the plaintiff and against defendant No.1. No cause of action

against defendant No 2 is made out since the jewellery is

alleged to have been kept with defendant No.1 and is alleged

to have been misappropriated by her. The same is the

position with respect to the cash of Rs.70,000/- which he

had kept with her. Hence, the suit against defendant No.2

is dismissed.

7. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE

DECEMBER 24, 2010 'sn'