The court emphasized the difference in standards of proof between criminal and civil cases, highlighting that a case of civil nature is decided by preponderance of probabilities.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs Dhan Kaur and her husband Sarban Singh, residents of village Jheriawali, Tehsil Mansa, had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.55,775/- against defendants Gurlal Singh, Mohinder Singh, Surjit Kaur, Gurtej Singh, Ghela Singh and Gurmail Singh, residents of Bajewala as indigent persons. They were allowed to sue as such by the Trial Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Mansa.

2. As per the case of the plaintiffs, their daughter Smt.Gamdur Kaur was married with defendant No.1 Gurlal Singh about 1 % years prior to the filing of the suit (suit filed on 7.2.1986) at village Jheriwali and thereafter both the spouses resided together as husband and wife; the plaintiffs had given dowry to their daughter Smt.Gamdur Kaur as per details below:

Smt.Gamdur Kaur had taken such articles to her matrimonial home and was absolute owner thereof; unfortunately soon after the marriage Smt.Gamdur Kaur was harassed and maltreated by family of her in-laws as they were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her and pressurised her to bring cash amount of Rs.10,000/- besides 6 tolas of gold from her parents; when Smt.Gamdur Kaur could not get such unreasonable demand conceded from her parents, she was turned out of the matrimonial home, warning her that she could return to the matrimonial home after getting the demand for more dowry met with, otherwise, she would be killed; after 15 days of the arrival of Smt.Gamdur Kaur to her parents house, her father, plaintiff No.2 Sarban Singh convened a Panchayat of respectables and got the matter compromised; as a result the defendant No.1 Gurlal Singh along with his brother Ghela Singh came to parental house of Smt.Gamdur Kaur and took her back along with them, however, they killed her by setting her on fire after about 15 days; the matter was reported at Police Station Jaurkian on 2.7.1983.

According to the plaintiffs since the defendants have killed daughter of plaintiffs with common intention, as such they have no right to keep her dowry articles. The plaintiffs asked them to return such articles to them or in the alternative pay price thereof to the tune of Rs.55,775.25 but the defendants failed to do so, as such the plaintiffs brought the suit in question.

3. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections, to wit that plaintiffs had no right under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act to claim inheritance of Smt.Smt.Gamdur Kaur, rather defendants are legal heirs of Smt.Gamdur Kaur, therefore, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit; otherwise also defendants Mohinder Singh etc. had given 12 tolas of gold to Smt.Gamdur Kaur at the time of her marriage with Gurlal Singh; various other gifts in the form of clothes and ornaments etc. had been given. On merits, the defendants conceded that Smt.Gamdur Kaur was married with Gurlal Singh and both of them resided together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home, however after some time articles given by parents of Smt.Gamdur Kaur as well as some other items were taken by Smt.Gamdur Kaur to her parental house and handed over to her parents; Smt.Gamdur Kaur had left the matrimonial home and resided with her parents for a period of about one year.

According to the defendants, plaintiffs are economically weak persons and could not afford to give so much dowry articles as claimed by them in the suit; as a matter of fact no dowry articles had been given to Smt.Gamdur Kaur at the time of her marriage because defendant Gurlal Singh wa