1. ' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN ACTO. C. Is a second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgments and decrees of the Court below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of movable property comprising dowry effects was dismissed because it was concurrently found by both the Courts below that Mst. Janat Bibi plaintiff was not successful to prove her claim and further because the suit was time-barred and the doctrine of res judicata was also attracted for the decision of the suit.
2. ' The learned counsel for the parties were heard.
3. Let us first take the point of res judicata. Prior to the institution of the instant suit there had formerly been two suits between the parties, one being for dissolution of marriage and another being for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the former suits were consolidated by the trial Court in which the subject-matter of this suit was directly and substantially involved and the decision on the matter was accordingly given by the Sub-Judge in the previous suits.
4. ' In the suit for dissolution of marriage it was very well asserted by the plaintiff-appellant that dowry effects were snatched away by the defendant respondent while turning her out of his house and thus this issue was directly and substantially made a subject of dispute between the parties so as to be determined either way by the Court. Apart from other ground plaintiff-appellant sought to obtain a decree of dissolution of marriage on this ground as well which was not found proved after it was flatly denied by the defendant-respondent either to have had any of the property of the description given by the plaintiff in his possession or to have eve admitted its existence at all.
5. Evidently the doctrine of res judicata under section 11 of C. P. C. Was a bar to the trial of the instant suit. Again. In this case Mst. Janat Bibi plaintiff-appellant examined herself as a witness of her own and also produced one Muhammad Ishaque as a witness to support her claim but their evidence was not believed by the Courts below and it was so done by them after critically examining their evidence with the result that issue of fact was also decided against the plaintiff-appellant and this is finding of fact concurrently given by the Courts below which cannot be disturbed in second appeal.
6. ' In the circumstances of the case we also feel that such a meagre evidence as that of the said persons cannot be relied upon for the relief claimed. Furthermore, from the perusal of the previous suit it becomes crystal clear that the instant suit of the plaintiff-appellant was miserably time- barred. The cause of action to the plaintiff arose even long before institution of the previous suit wherein it was asserted by her that she was deprived of her dowry effects by the defendant- respondent long before the institution of that suit. Obviously under Article 49 of the Limitation Act which is the only appropriate article applicable here, the suit was time-barred when it was filed after the lapse of a period of three years prescribed by law to bring a suit since allegedly the property was wrongfully taken by the defendant-respondent.
7. ' That being so, there being no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed with costs.