In dowry and stridhana claims, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs, and evidence contrary to pleadings cannot be considered.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23-4-2001 in O.S. No. 7 of 1996 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Narasapur, West Godavari District. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,56,540/- being stridhana amount of Rs.80,000/- of late Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma, wife of the 1st defendant and the value of 6 sovereigns of gold to a tune of Rs.21,000/- belonging to her, with interest thereon and for costs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the 1st plaintiff is the husband of 2nd plaintiff and he is the father of 3rd plaintiff. The 1st defendant is the son of defendants 2 and 3. The 4th defendant is the brother of 1st defendant. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have got two daughters. Their 2nd daughter Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma was married to the 1st defendant on 07-02-1993 in Narasapur as per Hindu usage and caste customs. At the time of negotiations of the marriage, the defendants demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- and for presentation of 5 sovereigns of gold as bala todugu and one sovereign of gold ring to the 1st defendant. Accordingly, the 1st plaintiff through the 3rd plaintiff made a payment of Rs.70,000/- by way of deposit in S.B. A/c No. 95/1424 relating to the 4th defendant lying with State Bank of India, Narasarapur, on 30-01-1993. The 3rd plaintiff signed the challan. The said amount so deposited with the 4th defendant, which is part of stridhana, belonged to Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. Balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the defendants in the presence of elders at the bank premises on the even day. The defendants have no manner or right or title to the said amount.

(b) It is further pleaded that at the time of marriage of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma with the 1st defendant on 07-02-1993, a gold chain, a pair of gold bangles and a pair of gold ear studs, all weighing in 5 sovereigns were presented as bala todugu to Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. A gold ring weighing one sovereign was given to the 1st defendant within one month from the date of marriage. Thus, in all 6 sovereigns of gold was given to the defendants as bala todugu of Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma joined her husband. Since then, the defendants began harassing her physically and mentally to bring more money. When she refused to oblige their demands, the defendants killed her on 05-8-1993 at their house at Chittavaram. The 1st plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Narasapur Rural Police Station, in Crime No. 32/1993 under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC.

(c) It is further pleaded that since Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma died intestate without procuring children, the defendants are bound to return stridhana property Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. The defendants failed to return the same. They are liable to return the same. The plaintiffs are also entitled to interest at 18% per annum. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 02-10-1994 for return of the said amount of the value of the jewellery. The defendants received the said notice and they got issued a reply dated 12-10-1994. The 4th defendant also sent a separate reply dated 12-10-1994. The 3rd plaintiff made the deposit, hence he is impleaded. Hence, the suit.

3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant are as follows:

It is contended that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiffs never paid any cash to the defendants. These defendants never went to bank on 30-01-1993. If really any amount was paid by the plaintiffs as alleged, it should have been only in the name of 1st defendant or as in the name of this defendant as he happened to be head of the family or at least in the name of 3rd defendant, who is the mother of 1st defendant. No amount can be deposited in the name of 4th defendant towards the alleged arrangement for provision of stridhana to late Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma. The plaintiffs do not possess capacit