Dismissed

Kurian George v. Chinnamma K.George

Kerala HC1 Mar 2010RSA/220/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by a husband challenging a decree declaring his wife's absolute right over certain properties. The court held that the earlier decree operates as res judicata as the facts regarding benami nature required factual findings not relitigable here, dismissing the appeal. Minor issues on partibility were excluded.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed with no costs; appellant's claim over items 1 and 5 barred by res judicata.

Kurian George Vs Chinnamma K.George — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

RSA.NO. 220 OF 2005() -------------------------------AS.66/1996 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.221/1993 OF M.C.,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶6

APPELLANT – APPELLANT - PLAINTIFF

¶7

----------------------------------------------------

¶8

KURIAN GEORGE, SON OF K.K.GEORGE, KANHIKUZHY MAMPAZHASSERI HOUSE, THOTTAMAN MURI, THEKKEPURAM VILLAGE, P.O.RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. SRI.RAHUL VARMA SRI.V.S.ROBIN

¶10

RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT - DEFENDANT:

¶11

------------------------------------------------------------

¶12

CHINNAMMA K.GEORGE, WIFE OF KURIAN GEORGE, MAMBAZHASSERIL, THUMPAMAN NORTH P.O., ELAVUMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA FOR R1 SRI.ISAAC GEORGE FOR R1

¶14

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶16

R.S.A. NO.220 of 2005

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2010

¶18

This appeal is admitted framing the following substantial

¶19

questions of law:

¶20

(i) Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit

¶21

for declaration after the commencement of the Benami Transactions

¶22

(Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short, “ Act”) by one of the vendees to

¶23

sale deed to the effect that he is the absolute owner in spite of the

¶24

fact that the sale deed stands in the joint names of the plaintiff and

¶25

defendant?

¶26

(ii) When the documents in question stand in the name of

¶27

the husband and wife, namely plaintiff and the defendant, would

¶28

R.S.A. No.220 of 2005

¶29

-: 2 :-

¶30

Sec.4(3)(b) of the Act apply to such a case?

¶31

(iii) Whether the decree obtained against the provisions of

¶32

the Act will operate as res judicata?

¶33

Fight between an estranged husband and wife (I am told

¶34

that they got divorce during the pendency of litigation).

¶35

Appellant/husband filed O.S.No.221 of 1993 in the court of learned

¶36

Munsiff, Pathanamthitta for partition of item Nos.1 to 6, last item

¶37

being a residential house in itmem No.1. He claimed one half share

¶38

in the suit property. Respondent contended that item Nos.1, 4 and

¶39

5 are not partible since those items exclusively belonged to her

¶40

having been purchased with the funds of her father and name of

¶41

R.S.A. No.220 of 2005

¶42

-: 3 :-

¶43

appellant was included in the respective documents of title only as a

¶44

trustee. So far as item No.6 is concerned that also is not partible.

¶45

According to the respondent since building is situated in plaint

¶46

schedule item No.6 which is not partible for the reason stated above.

¶47

She filed O.S. No.336 of 1993 against the appellant for declaration of

¶48

her absolute right over items 1, 4 and 5. In O.S. No.336 of 1993 an

¶49

ex parte decree was passed in favour of the respondent as

¶50

evidenced by Exts.B1 and B2, certified copy of judgment and decree

¶51

as per which absolute right claimed by the respondent over item

¶52

Nos.1 and 5 declared. In the light of Exts.B1 and B2 trial court after

¶53

evidence fond that other items (2, 3, 4) are partible among appellant

¶54

R.S.A. No.220 of 2005

¶55

-: 4 :-

¶56

and respondent. Appellant took up the matter in appeal not being

¶57

satisfied with the decree. First appellate court however confirmed

¶58

the judgment and decree and hence this Second Appeal. It is

¶59

contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Exts.B1 and B2

¶60

cannot stand since the suit (O.S.No.336 of 1993) itself is barred by

¶61

Sec.4 of the Act and hence question of Exts.B1 and B2 operating as

¶62

res judicata did not arise. According to learned counsel courts

¶63

below were not correct in holding that item Nos.1 and 5 are not

¶64

partible. Learned counsel contends that the said items are also

¶65

partible among the appellant and respondent equally. Learned

¶66

counsel for respondent would contend that Exts.B1 and B2 have

¶67

R.S.A. No.220 of 2005

¶68

-: 5 :-

¶69

become final, appellant had preferred an application to set aside

¶70

Exts.B1 and B2 and that application was dismissed long back. As

¶71

such in a separate proceeding correctness of Exts.B1 and B2 cannot

¶72

be gone into. According to learned counsel a reading of Exts.A3 and

¶73

A4, documents of title in respect of item Nos.1 and 5 would also

¶74

show that appellant has no right over the said items since funds for

¶75

purchase of the said items came from respondent's father. Learned

¶76

counsel has placed reliance on Section 45 of the Transfer of Property

¶77

Act and the decision in Vasanathakumary v. Omanakutan

¶78

Nair (2009 [3] KLT 43).

¶79

Now dispute is only concerning the partibility of item

¶80

R.S.A. No.220 of 2005

¶81

-: 6 :-

¶82

Nos.1 and 5. Other disputes have already resolved by the trial court

¶83

and they are not under challenge before me. Contention raised by

¶84

the learned counsel for appellant is that going by Exts.B1 and B2

¶85

case of respondent is that appellant was only a trustee and Exts.A3

¶86

and A4 happened to be taken in the name of the appellant in that

¶87

capacity attempt evidently is to bring the transactions as per Exts.A3

¶88

and A4 within the purview of sub-sec.(3) of Sec.4 of the Act.

¶89

Learned counsel would contend that to apply sub-sec.(3) of Sec.4 of

¶90

the Act evidently the matter must otherwise be one coming under

¶91

sub-sec.1 of Sec.4 of the Act. Learned counsel contends that sub-

¶92

sec.(3) of Sec.4 of the Act has no application and the contention of

¶93

R.S.A. No.220 of 2005

¶94

-: 7 :-

¶95

respondent as to her absolute right over item Nos.1 and 5 as per

¶96

Exts.A3 and A4 and further that appellant is only a trustee of the

¶97

said items is hit by Sec.4 of the Act. Hence O.S. No.336 of 1993

¶98

(which culminated in Ext.B1 and B2) itself is not maintainable.

¶99

Learned counsel submits that as per the Act Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood prior to amendment has also been

¶100

repealed and hence O.S. No.336 of 1993 was not maintainable.

¶101

Therefore Exts.B1 and B2 cannot operate as res judicata as against

¶102

the appellant.

¶103

In Ext.A3 source of sale consideration is traced to father

¶104

of respondent (father-in-law of appellant). It is stated that sale

¶105

R.S.A. No.220 of 2005

¶106

-: 8 :-

¶107

consideration was given to the vendor by the father of respondent

¶108

for the purpose of acquisition of the property for appellant and

¶109

respondent. When it came to Ext.A4 it is stated that sale

¶110

consideration came from the father of respondent for the purpose of

¶111

acquiring the property on her behalf.

¶112

Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that

¶113

petition to set aside Exts.B1 and B2 preferred by the appellant was

¶114

dismissed long back. As such Exts.B1 and B2 became final. Now

¶115

question is whether in view of Sec.4 of the Act it can be said that

¶116

Exts.B1 and B2 will not operate as res judicata against the

¶117

contention now raised by the appellant in the present suit.

¶118

R.S.A. No.220 of 2005

¶119

-: 9 :-

¶120

I have gone through Exts.B1 and B2 as well as Exs.A3

¶121

and A4. Going by Exts.B1 and B2 it is not the case of respondent

¶122

that her suit is saved by sub-sec.(3) of Sec.4 of the Act and instead,

¶123

she only stated that name of appellant was included in Exts.A3 and

¶124

A4 only in his capacity as a trustee of the respondent. I must also

¶125

bear in mind that going by Exts.A3 and A4 sale consideration came

¶126

from the father of respondent and it is not a case of father of respondent claiming that he purchased the property in the name of

¶127

appellant as well. Whatever that be, question is whether Exts.B1

¶128

and B2 would operate as res judicata. If the earlier decision is

¶129

based on pure question of law, it may be possible to say in a

¶130

R.S.A. No.220 of 2005

¶131

-: 10 :-

¶132

subsequent proceeding that the decision would not operate as res

¶133

judicata. But question whether Exts.A3 and A4 were benami in

¶134

nature and if it is so respondent was entitled to the protection of

¶135

sub-sec.(3) of Sec.4 of the Act are matters involving question of fact

¶136

and law. In such a situation if Exts.B1 and B2 are found to be

¶137

erroneous that cannot take Exts.B1 and B2 within the purview of

¶138

Sec.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore question whether

¶139

the decision in O.S. No.336 of 1993 is correct on the facts involved

¶140

and law arising therefrom is not a matter required to be decided in this appeal as that has been concluded by Exts.B1 and b2. That

¶141

decision would operate as res judicata so far as the appellant and

¶142

R.S.A. No.220 of 2005

¶143

-: 11 :-

¶144

his claim over item Nos.1 and 5 are concerned.

¶145

Substantial questions of law framed are answered accordingly.

¶146

Consequently, Second Appeal has to fail. It is dismissed. No

¶147

costs.

¶148

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶149

vsv

Kurian George v. Chinnamma K.George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurian George v. Chinnamma K.George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph K.Joseph Vs Capt. James Joseph

Chukkananikkal Apren and Another Vs Nayipurayidathil Sebastian

Ramachandran Vs K. Sundara

Gopalakrishna Vs M.Srinivas

Ally Vs Sankunni

Stanley Moses Vs Pastorate Committee