Jaina Law Bhadrabahu Samhita

Author(s): J L Jaini
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown

Page 86

70
APPENDIX B.
alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff produces no evidence to show the defendants' possession of this house. The defendant Mangilal as plaintiff's witness (Exhibit 25) deposes as follows:
एक पड़ावपर का हमालपुरे में का मकान भागाबाई पास गिरवे था। उसने रुपये लेकर मकान गिरवे रखनेवाले को दे दिया। The plaintiff does not rebut this at all. Then the witness speaks of the 3 houses mentioned above as the houses Nos. 1, 2, and 3; and then he deposes as to all these 4 houses as follove
मृत्युपत्र में लिखे हुवे इस्टेट में से ऊपर लिखे हुवे चार घर छोड़कर बाकी की इस्टेट हम तीनो प्रतिवादी को भागाबाई दे गयी । So this house No. 6 also has not been proved to be in the possession of the defendants.
Coming to the next item of property, the factum of the possession of which is disputed by the parties, I have to consider the 12 ornaments in Schedule (Exhibit A). Of the items, one alone is admitted by the defendants to be in their possession. It is a pair of gold bands on bangles which the defendants value at Rs. 40 and admit to be in their possession, whereas the plaintiff values it at Rs. 125 (See Exhibits 10/4, and A). The ornaments are not mentioned in the will at all; therefore, if they can be proved to be in the possession of the defendants, they must be made over to the plaintiff. But there is no evidence that any of the ornaments, except the gold bands for bangles, are at all in the possession of the defendants : and I must hold that the defendants do not have possession of them and, consequently, are not liable to deliver them to the plaintiff. But the gold hands of which they are admittedly in possession, are not given away by the will. As to them, the deceased died intestate. To them the plaintiff is entitled