1. The fifth defendant in Special Civil Suit No.16 of 1951 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Belgaum is the appellant in this Court. The material facts of this case are as follows:

2. The plaintiff is the Swamiji of Uttaradhi Math. According to his case he pledged a gold pot weighing over 400 tolas through his agent Madhwachar with the money - lending concern belonging to the family of defendants 1 to 4 for a sum of Rs.30.000/- The pledge in question was made on 10-01-1949. His further case is that out of the sum of Rs.30,000/-, he had already discharged a sum of Rs.23,000/-. When he offered to pay the balance amount and asked for the redemption of jewel, defendants 1 to 4 failed to give back the jewel in question and thereafter, he came to know that they had re - pledged that jewel with the fifth defendant for a sum of Rs.33,750/-. He demanded possession of the jewel from the 5th defendant. The fifth defendant having refused to comply with the demand made, he is constrained to file the present suit.

3. Defendants 1 to 4 belong to a Hindu joint family of which the first defendant is the Karta. They are money - lenders. The money - lending business was managed by defendants 3 and 4. The second defendant though a member of that family was a Government servant at the relevant time. Defendants 1 to 4 pleaded in the Court below that the third defendant pledged the jewel in question on 10/01/1949 with the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd., at its branch at Belgaum on behalf of the plaintiff and that the same was not pledged with them. Their further case was that the pledge with the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate was redeemed on 30/07/1949 and the same jewel was again pledged with the fifth defendant on the same day for Rs.33,750/-. They admit that out of the monies borrowed by the Plaintiff, he had discharged a sum of Rs.10,000/- even prior to 30/07/1949. It is also admitted that on the date of the suit a sum of Rs.20,000/- and odd on the aggregate had been paid in respect of the monies borrowed on 10/01/1949. The case for the fifth defendant is that the jewel in question did not belong to the plaintiff and that defendants 1 to 4 were the true owners of the same; they pledged that jewel on 30/07/1949 with them for Rs.33,750/-and until the money borrowed as per the pledge is paid off, he is entitled to retain possession thereof. It is also pleaded that the suit as brought is bad as the plaintiff did not comply with S.70 of the Bombay Co - operative Societies Act.

4. On the basis of these pleadings, as many as ten issues were framed. The Court below rejected all the contentions of the defendants and decreed the suit as prayed for. In so far as the costs are concerned, it gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff only as against defendants 1 to 4. Aggrieved by this decision, the fifth defendant has come up in appeal and the plaintiff has filed a Memorandum of cross - objections wherein he has objected to the decision of the Court below as regards costs and also complained that the money directed to be returned is not full and complete.

5. The facts as found by the Court below are that the jewel in question was pledged by the plaintiff with the family of defendants 1 to 4 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-; it is the family of defendants 1 to 4 who re - pledged the jewel first with the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd., and later on with the 5th defendant; only a sum of Rs.9,166/- is due under the pledge made on 10/01/1949 and the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the jewel on payment of that amount. It also came to the conclusion that the notice given under S.70 of the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, Exhibit 122 is valid in law.

6. In this Court, Sri S.V. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the appellant canvassed the correctness of the findings of the Court below and contended that in reality the plaintiff did not pledge the jewel with the family of defendants 1 to 4 and the same was