A decree for recovery of movable property need not necessarily state the money value of the property as an alternative to its delivery, and the decree-holder is entitled to recover the property in specie unless it is found that delivery in specie cannot be had.

RATNAM, J. :- The second defendant in C.S. No.141 of 1971 on the file of the Original Side of this Court is the petitioner in these applications. In that suit instituted by the first respondent in C.M.P. No.12420 of 1981 and the sole respondent in C.M.P. 12427 of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder) she prayed for partition and separate possession of l-1/28th share in the A and B Sch. properties and for partition and separate possession of half share in the C and D Schedule properties and for recovery of possession of E Schedule Stridhana and other movable properties from the petitioner in these applications or such of the defendants as may be found to be in possession of the Stridhana and other movable properties and also for declaration of her title to the F Schedule properties and for recovery of possession thereof from defendants 2, 11 to 13 in the suit. In addition, the relief of rendition of accounts by defendants 1 to 7 in the suit in respect of the income realised from the A and B Schedule properties from 19-9-1961 and a similar relief as against the petitioner herein in respect of C and D schedule properties and also F schedule properties was prayed for by her. Certain defences were set up to the suit and for purposes of the present applications, it is unnecessary to notice them in detail, as we are now concerned only with Item 3 of the E Schedule. In relation to this item, in para 30 of the written statement filed by the petitioner in the course of the suit, the petitioner denied the presentation thereof at the time of the marriage of Vijayalakshrni. The custody of the E Schedule items was denied by the petitioner. Issue No.8 in the suit covered the dispute between the parties in relation to the E Schedule stridhana properties. Sethuraman J. who tried the suit found that Item No.3 of the E Schedule belonged to the stepmother of the petitioner in these applications and was given to the decree-holder merely for the purpose of being worn by her at the time of her marriage and, therefore, that item cannot be claimed by her. Items 6 and 8 of the plaint E Schedule were found to belong to the decree-holder and she was held entitled to recover them. As regards Items 14 to 17 and 19 in E Schedule, the petitioner was found to be in possession of those items and the decree-holder was declared entitled to a half share therein. In accordance with these findings, the decree in the suit under Cls.7 and 8, thereof provided as under-

7. That the plaintiff is exclusively entitled to the return or recovery from the second defendant of Items 6 and 8 of plaint E Schedule (Schedule VI hereunder) since they belong to her;

8. That the plaintiff and the 8th defendant herein, are entitled to Items 14 to 17 and 19 of plaint E Schedule (Sch.VI hereunder) and that the

same be divided between them."

2. Aggrieved by this decree dt. 13-9-1974, which negatived the claim made by the decree-holder, she preferred an appeal in O.S.A. 45 of 1975 and the petitioner and others filed a memorandum of cross-objections objecting to the decree in favour of Vijayalakshmi in relation to certain items. The appeal as well as the memorandum of cross-objections were heard by a Division Bench consisting of Gokulakrishnan and Varadarajan JJ. on 29-8-1978. Dealing with Item 3 of the E Schedule property, the Division Bench held thus-

"Regarding the E Schedule properties, Mr. Mohan restricted his argument only to Item 3 which has been stated by DW 4 in his evidence to have belonged to the first defendant's third wife and to have been merely lent to the plaintiff for being worn by her at the time of her marriage. There is no specific plea in the written statement of defendants 1 to 9 that Item 3 of the E Schedule properties belonged to the second defendant's stepmother and had been merely lent to the plaintiff for being worn by her at the time of her marriage. Nor has any such suggestion been made to PW 1. We, therefore, agree with Mr. Mohan that Item 3