Court finds alleged jewelry sale bogus, orders return or payment. Respondent wins in fraud case.

The court found that all 11 pledged jewels were valued at Rs. 11,000. It concluded that the alleged sale was a bogus transaction with no credibility. The court rejected the argument of respondent's acquiescence, stating it was not possible in the case of fraud. The suit was deemed maintainable for redemption. The court held the suit was not time-barred and ordered the appellants to return the jewels or pay Rs. 11,000 to the respondent. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the appellants.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Number and value of the jewels
2. Factum and validity of the sale
3. Respondent's acquiescence
4. Maintainability of the suit
5. Limitation

Detailed Analysis

1. Number and Value of the Jewels
The court found that "all 11 jewels mentioned in the decree were pledged." The value of the jewels was determined to be Rs. 11,000 based on the evidence presented, including the appellants' own valuation inconsistencies.

2. Factum and Validity of the Sale
The court concluded that "there was no sale at all on 25th January 1923 as alleged by the appellants." The purported sale was deemed a "bogus transaction" with no credible evidence supporting it. The court highlighted several inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, such as the absence of actual buyers, no money exchanged, and fabricated ledger entries.

3. Respondent's Acquiescence
The court rejected the argument that the respondent acquiesced in the sale, stating, "No one can acquiesce in a fraud till he knows that there has been a fraud." The court found no evidence that the respondent knew the sale was a myth and emphasized that the respondent's payments during execution proceedings did not amount to acquiescence.

4. Maintainability of the Suit
The court held that the suit was maintainable, stating, "There having been no sale, the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the jewels by payment of a certain amount." The court dismissed the argument that the suit was incompetent under Section 47, Civil P.C., as the issue of the sale was not part of the original suit's subject matter.

5. Limitation
The court determined that the suit was not barred by limitation. It was held that the suit could be considered as one for redemption with a limitation period of 30 years or as one for damages for breach of contract with a limitation period of 3 years. The suit, filed on 19th January 1926, was well within the permissible time frame.

Conclusion
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment, ordering the appellants to either produce the pledged jewels or pay the respondent Rs. 11,000, less the amount due under the previous decree. The court also dismissed the memo of objections with costs.

---