This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.31 of 1992 dated 03.01.1995 on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry.

.2. The appellant herein was the defendant in the suit before the Trial Court. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the father of late Murugaiyan, husband of the respondent/plaintiff. The said Murugaiyan had married the respondent herein on 211. 1998, at Pondicherry and on 30.08.1991 he died. According to the respondent, subsequently she was driven out of her matrimonial home by the appellant, on 15.09.1991. However, her Sreedhana properties, insurance policies and the bank pass books kept in the matrimonial home were not returned to the respondent. Based on the above pleadings the respondent had filed the suit, seeking a decree directing the appellant to deliver B and C schedule of properties described in the plaint whichever presented as Sreedhana properties at the time of her marriage and also to direct the appellant to return the C schedule properties or its value that were pledged by Murugaiyan. The appellant as defendant, disputed the claim of the respondent.

3. On the side of the respondent/plaintiff P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined, Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On the side of the appellant/defendant D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, apart from marking the documents Exs.BI to BII. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit directing the appellant to return the articles and jewels described as items 3 to 14, in the first schedule of the plaint and in case if he fails to return those articles and jewels he should pay a sum of Rs.42,750/- with 12% interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation and the appellant shall return the items of property mentioned in the second schedule therein or the value thereof after deducting a sum of Rs.9,950/- paid by him, for redeeming the jewels.

4. According to the appellant, the suit was filed on 012. 1991 and disposed of on 03.01.1991 six years after the date of marriage of the plaintiff and due to the long period of six years the articles would have become old or damaged and lost its value. In the grounds of appeal, it has been further contended that on the date of marriage the respondent was living separately with her husband by having a separate mess and therefore all the jewels/articles were only in their custody and use. The appellant has further averred that the respondent had not proved her contention that the properties mentioned as B and C schedule properties in the plaint, were returned and that the judgment rendered by the Court below was not based on the evidence. In the written statement the appellant has averred that he was living with his eldest son and the deceased was his younger son. According to him, Murugaiyan, husband of the respondent had already sold his motor cycle referred to in the plaint during his life time and he had raised money by pledging the jewels specified in the C schedule of the plaint.

5. According to the respondent/P.W.I at the time of her marriage, she was given with the B and C schedule of properties. During the life time of her husband Murugaiyan he had pledged her jewels for constructing the house. However, she was not allowed to stay in the house of the appellant, but driven out of her matrimonial home by the appellant, by using filthy language against her. Though she had asked the appellant to return the B and C schedule properties, he refused to return the same and she came to know that the jewels pledged by her husband were also redeemed by the appellant. However, he refused to return the same to the respondent. Hence, the respondent issued legal notice for the return of Sreedhana properties. In spite of the legal notice the Sreedhana properties were not returned to her.

6. The appellant as P.W.I has stated that the respondent had taken away her Sreedhana properties leaving a steel cot, almerah in his house and that he wa