Basant, J.

Was the Family Court correct in accepting the evidence of the claimant/wife ignoring Ext.B1? This is the specific question that arises for consideration. A larger question arises as to whether the Courts would be justified in issuing directions, which will effectively do justice to the parties when it comes to a claim for return of movable articles.

2. The appellants in this appeal assail the impugned direction to them to return 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments (or its monetary value of Rs.3,60,000/-), an amount of Rs.3 lakhs and a washing machine to the respondent herein.

3. To the crucial and vital facts first. Marriage between the first appellant/husband and the respondent took place on 14.5.2001. No issues were born in the wedlock. Subsequently the marriage has been dissolved. The wife claimed return of 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs and a washing machine which was left in the possession of the appellants. The appellants are the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the claimant/wife/respondent herein.

4. The contestants took up a blanket and complete denial. According to them, no amount was paid, on gold ornamen