1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), The appellant was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites on 10th October, 1973. Two male children were born from this wedlock. Parties lived together upto 22nd September, 1976. On 23rd March, 1979, the appellant filed a petition for a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia)(ib) and for return of articles under Section 27 of the Act. The trial court by judgment dated 24th October, 1980 dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion by the husband under Section 13 (1)(ib) of the Act. The appellants claim under Section 27 of the Act for the return of the articles was dismissed. The present appeal is only directed against the order dismissing her claim under Section 27 of the Act, Schedule A attached to the petition mentions the various properties presented to the appellant at the time of marriage. The respondent-husband denied the correctness of Schedule A. He denied that the properties were presented to the appellant. It was also denied that those properties were in joint possession of the parties. The respondent alleged that jewellery worth Rs. 12,000/- was presented from his side to the appellant in Wari besides few necessary apparels which were alleged to be in possession of the appellant. The trial court held that the value of the articles presented has not been proved satisfactorily and therefore it was not possible to decide as to what property was jointly owned by the parties which were given at the time of marriage and what was the value thereof. It was also observed that items such as entertainment expenses Rs. 8000/-, expenses on engagement ceremony Rs. 3500/-, expenses on Thaka Rs. 5000/- and expenses on Shagun Rs. 3000/- cannot be said to be the articles presented to the appellant-wife, at the time of marriage. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has not given any finding that the articles mentioned in Schedule A were not given; he claims that the respondent should be directed to return the articles and in the alternative to pay the value thereof. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that there are no pleadings under Section 27 of the Act, that no dowry was given, that the respondent has not been in possession of any article, that the jewellery worth Rs. 12,000/- presented by his side to the appellant in Wari has been in her possession, that only Rs. 1.25 paise and some sweets were presented. He further submits that before marriage it was settled that no jewellery would be presented by the appellants parents and on account of this settlement none was presented. Section 27 of the Act is as under:

S.27: In any proceeding under this Act, the court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.

Para 17 of the petition for divorce is as under:

That properties mentioned in Schedule A annexed herewith were presented to the petitioner at or about the time of marriage by her parents, friends and in-laws and all those properties are in possession of the respondent as the same were taken in possession jointly by the parties. The contents of the Schedule may please be taken as part of this petition also. Most of the properties like ornaments, ladies suits, garments etc, are only for the use of the petitioner and of no use to the respondent. The petitioner is also entitled to the use of other properties mentioned in the schedule. The respondent is therefore, liable to return the same to the petitioner as he has no right to retain the same in his possession in any manner whatsoever.

It is, therefore, prayed that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent may please be dissolved by a decree of divorce and also the provision be made in the decree thereby directing the respondent to return the properties mentioned in the Schedule A attached with this petition.

According to para 17 the articles mentioned in Schedule A were presented to the appellant. There is no allegation that the properties mentioned in Schedule A belonged jointly to both the husband and the wife. The allegation on the other hand is that the properties were presented to the wife and that the respondent who was in possession was liable to return the same to her as he had no right to retain the same. It is however pleaded that the properties, were taken in possession jointly by the parties. A bare reading of para 17 makes it clear that the claim relates only to the properties which were presented to the petitioner. Section 27 of the Act empowers the court to pass orders with respect to the property presented at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that there is no pleading and as such no amount of evidence, if any, can be looked into and that no relief can be granted to the appellant under Section 27 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand submits that the properties were presented to the petitioner, that the same are in possession of the respondent and that under Section 151 read with order 7 rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court has power to pass a decree directing the husband to return the properties in question to the wife. Section 27 of the Act is a substantive provision dealing with the properties jointly owned both by the husband and the wife. No provision in the Act regarding individual property of the spouses has been brought to my notice. In fact there is none. Learned counsel submits that the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to all proceedings under this Act as provided in Section 21 of the Act and therefore the relief can be granted. Learned counsel for the respondent however submits that Code of Civil Procedure is applicable as regards procedure, but Section 27 of the Act does not apply to properties belonging to one of the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon Kamta Prasad v. Smt. Om Wati, AIR 1972 All. 153 [LQ/AllHC/1971/222] , wherein it has been observed that the Act does not prohibit the passing of the decree with regard to the articles which did not belong to both the husband and the wife and that such a decree can be passed under inherent powers. It was also observed that Section 27 of the Act does not exclude the general power of the court to pass appropriate decree in regard to the property belonging exclusively to either the husband or the wife.

2. Under Section 27 of the Act power is conferred upon the court to make orders for the disposal of the properties which were jointly owned by both the husband and the wife. The section does not make any reference to the properties belonging exclusively to either the husband or the wife. It must therefore be held that there is no provision conferring any power on the court under the Act to pass any order with respect to the property owned be one of the parties. In the present case the pleading is that the property belongs to the appellant wife as the same was presented to her at the time of marriage. She has claimed the return of the said properties from the respondent. No direction can, therefore, be given under Section 27 of the Act or under Order 7 rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code. With due respect the view taken by Allahabad does not seem to be correct. I do not agree with the view that a decree can be passed under Section 27 of the Act with regard to the property exclusively belonging cither to the husband or the wife. The parties may seek remedy in ordinary civil courts but not in court under the Act for the return of individual property or its value thereof. The parties have referred to the entire evidence on record and on merits also I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled to any relief under Section 27 of the Act. The appellant-wife has pleaded that the properties mentioned in Schedule A were presented to her at the time of her marriage by her parents, friends and in-laws. This Schedule is in two sheets. First sheet has been marked as Ex. P.1 while the second sheet has been marked as Ex. P.2. Ex. P.2 contains the list of articles presented to the appellant by her-in-laws. Ex. P. 1 gives the list of properties presented to the appellant by her parents. Some of the items are vague. Particulars of the jewellery, utensils, crockery, electric appliances have not been given. While in the witness box, the appellant stated that these articles were given to her at the time of marriage by her parents and her in-laws. Although there is no pleading but she deposed that those articles were given to her and to the respondent jointly. She has given the details of jewellery. According to her it consisted of two necklaces, two pairs of ear-rings, two finger rings, locket with pendent, eight bangles, two karas and two gents rings. She further deposed that the articles mentioned in Ex. P. 1 and P. 2 were in possession of the respondent, that Televista T.V. set was purchased two or three days before the marriage in the name of the respondents father. As regards electric appliances she deposed that it consisted of one electric iron, one plate, one electric motor with shaker and grinder, one table lamp, electric heater and one Rallis table fan. In cross examination she denied that she was in possession of those articles. She could not tell the particulars of the shop from which the jewellery was purchased. She could not give the amount spent by her parents for the purchase of jewellery. She is not aware if her father was assessed to income-tax. She is alleged to have deposited Rs. 10,000/- in a bank but she does not remember the name of the bank. She was not even possessed of the pass book. She was also not aware if her father had a bank account at or before the time of marriage. She farther deposed that the receipts, vouchers and cash memos regarding the articles purchased at the time of her marriage were handed over to the respondents brother and his brother-in-law Dr. Suraj Parkash. She was not in a position to tell the value of any article. She denied that the articles mentioned in Schedule were not given at the time of her marriage. P.W. 2 Smt. Janak Juneja deposes that the jewellery weighing 300 grams and other articles were presented at the time of marriage, that the respondents parents presented one gold set at the time of ring ceremony and six gold sets at the time of marriage. The witness is related. The appellant is her maternal uncles daughter. In cross-examination she deposed that the weight of the gold jewellery presented by the respondents parents was about 500 grams. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Batra, P.W. 3 is the appellants brother. He also deposed that the articles were presented at the time of marriage, and the jewellery was about 300 grams, that the respondents parents presented seven gold sets, 16 gold bangles, that the appellant did not bring any article along with her when she came back from Madras. In cross-examination he deposed that they did not prepare any list of jewellery and other articles presented by them at the time of marriage. He denied the suggestion that jewellery was not presented and that the jewellery presented by respondents parent was brought by the appellant when she came from Madras. Baldev Raj P.W. 4 father of the appellant depesed that he presented 30 tolas of gold jewellery besides other articles at the lime of marriage that he handed over the vouchers and receipts for the purchase of the various articles to respondents brother Om Parkash and his sisters husband Dr. Suraj Parkash, a television set was presumed and the licence was got issued in the name of respondents father, that live gold sets were presented to the appellant by the respondents parents in Wari. a cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the respondents parents presented only one gold set and not five gold sets and two diamond sets. He admitted that he did not take any dowry on the marriage of his son Harish Kumar. He denied that he did not present any jewellery etc. at the time of marriage of the parties. As regards his income he deposed that it was Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- a year at the time of the marriage of the appellant He admitted that he had not kept any account spent on the purchase of articles. He did not remember from which particular shop, the jewellery or gold was purchased. He could not give the names of any shop from where the furniture and other articles were purchased. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 did not depose about the jewellery. R.W. 1 respondent-husband has deposed that the appellant left his house at Madras on 22nd September, 1976 when he was not present at house, that before marriage it was settled that no dowry would be presented by the appellants parents and they did not present any dowry whatsoever in the marriage, He denied that any article mentioned in Schedule A i.e. Ex. P. 1 was presented at the time of marriage. On the other hand he deposed that his parents presented only one gold set and that its value was Rs. 12,000/- and that the same has been in possession of the appellant. In cross-examination he admits that his servant Rama was present when the appellant left Madras, that his servant had only told him that the appellant had left with her parents and that the servant did not tell anything else. R.W. 2 Om Parkash brother of the respondent deposed that no article of dowry as mentioned in Ex. P. I was presented to the respondent by the appellants parents, that his parents did not present the articles mentioned in Ex. P. 2 to the appellant but they presented only one gold set and some clothes at the time of marriage. He further deposed that no voucher, receipt and cash memo was given to him or to his sisters husband Dr. Suraj Parkash at any time. In cross-examination he deposed that their relations with their brother-in-law Dr. Suraj Parkash were not cordial. He denied that the articles mentioned in Ex. P. 1 were handed over to him and to his sisters husband Dr. Suraj Parkash or to the appellant and the respondent.

3. After going through the entire evidence, I find that the income of the appellants father at the time of marriage was about Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. He has not disclosed the source of investment for the purchase of the articles of the dowry. He has not filed any account regarding the various purchases. Receipts and vouchers of the various purchasers are alleged to have been delivered to the respondents relations but it seems unnatural that they were given to the respondent or to his relation. The appellants father is a business man. He has not disclosed the amounts spent on marriage or on the purchase of the various articles alleged to have been given in jewellery. The evidence on record on behalf of the appellant is of interested persons and no reliance can be placed in the absence of other available evidence. Moreover the appellants father did not take any dowry in the marriage of his son and the case of the respondent is that before marriage it was settled that no jewellery would be presented by the appellants father. It is, therefore, probable that no dowry was agreed to be given at the time of marriage. It is strange that the appellant or her witnesses do not remember the names of the shop keepers from where the various items of jewellery, furniture and other articles were purchased. It seems unreasonable that all the persons have forgotten the names of jeweller from whom they purchased the jewellery or got the same fabricated. On the evidence on record it must be held that no article as alleged was given by the appellants parents in dowry. As regards one gold set of the value of Rs. 12,000/- admittedly presented by the respondents parents to the appellant, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the same is with the respondent and therefore he should be directed to return to the appellant or in the alternative its value, According to the respondent only one set was given. Ordinarily the jewellery presented to the appellant ought to be in her possession. Nothing has been deposed by the appellant as to where the jewellery was kept after the marriage. The respondent has deposed that when the appellant left Madras in his absence from the house only the servant and his brother were there. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the servant and the brother of the respondent have not been produced and therefore adverse presumption must be drawn against the respondent to the effect that the appellant did not bring with her jewellery set. No presumption can be drawn against the respondent. When the appellant was leaving the house at Madras it is unbelievable that the servant or the brother of the respondent would check the attach case of the appellant. The respondent has deposed that he was not in possession of the gold set presented to the appellant. At best this would be a case of oath against oath, and as the onus lay upon the appellant, she should fail.

4. I, therefore, hold that the appellant wife is not entitled to any direction under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.