Dismissed

Sri.Abdu Rahiman v. Chatheri Hussain Musaliyar & Others

Kerala HC8 Dec 2010WP(C)/28556/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a husband challenging an execution sale of his property in favour of his wife and minor children, who were decree holders in a suit against him.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to keep an interim injunction against alienation of the property in force until pending execution applications before the Family Court are disposed of.

Sri.Abdu Rahiman Vs Chatheri Hussain Musaliyar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 28556 of 2010(R) -------------------------OP.479/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF

¶7

¶8

SRI. ABDU RAHIMAN,S/O.VARIKOTTIL MOIDEEN KUTTI HAJI, AGED 40,OAMACHAPUZHA AMSOM, DESOM TIRUR TALUK. REP.BY P/A. HOLDER MR.MUHAMMED FAROOQ,S/O.BEERANKUTTI, AGED 38,RESIDING THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, THENNALA AMSOM,DESOM, P.O.CHULLIPPARA TIRURANGADI TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS

¶11

¶12

CHATHERI HUSSAIN MUSALIYAR AGED 41 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER MUSALIYAR, OAMACHAPUZHA AMSOM DESOM TIRUR TALUK. PIN.676 101 TIRUR POST.

¶13

SUVAIBATHUL ASLAMIYYA, AGED 27 YEARS, MADAPPULAN HOUSE, PONMALA AMSOM, THALAKKAPPU DESOM PONMALA.P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST- PIN.676 528.

¶14

UMAIRA SAIBANA, AGED 9 YEARS,(MINOR) DO-DO- PIN.676 528.

¶15

FATHIMA SHAHANA, AGED 7 YEARS (MINOR)

¶16

-DO-DO- PIN.676 528.

¶17

HUSNA SHYMA, AGED 4 YEARS,(MINOR)

¶18

-DO-DO- PIN.676 528.

¶19

ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 2ND RESPONDENT

¶20

ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF FOR R2

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶23

------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 28556 of 2010-R

¶24

------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2010

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Basant,J.

¶27

The writ petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and father of the minor children - respondents 3 to 5. The appellant had filed a suit against the 1^st respondent and had secured an ex parte decree. Respondents 2 to 5 had later filed a suit against their husband/father - the 1^st respondent. They had also secured an ex parte decree. Respondents 2 to 5 wanted the ex parte decree to be executed against the 1^st respondent. That decree has already been executed. The decree holders i.e., respondents 2 to 5 have purchased the property belonging to the 1^st respondent in execution. Delivery has also been effected. Their E.P. has been closed after recording full satisfaction on 6/8/10.

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 28556 of 2010 -: 2 :-

¶29

The appellant, the decree holder, in the earlier suit (there is no unanimity between the counsel which is the earlier decree) wants to assail the sale in favour of respondents 2 to 5. He contends that the suit is a collusive venture between the spouses and the children. He has already filed E.A.Nos.100, 101, 102 and 104/10 in E.P.No.94/10 before the Family Court. Those stand posted to 6/12/10. Report submitted by the learned Judge of the Family Court shows that steps shall be taken to expeditiously dispose of the said four E.As.

¶30

After discussions at the Bar, both counsel agree that interim direction against alienation of the property belonging to the 1^st respondent delivered to respondents 2 to 5 can be ordered to remain in force till E.A.Nos.100, 101, 102 and 104/10 in E.P.No.94/10 are disposed of. The parties shall be at liberty to raise all their relevant contentions before the Family Court in the said proceedings. The order of injunction against alienation shall remain in force till the said E.As. are disposed of by the Family Court. We need only mention that we expect the Family Court to dispose of those E.As. as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this judgment is placed before the Family Court if there is no legal impediment against the disposal of those E.As.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 28556 of 2010 -: 3 :-

¶32

This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed

¶33

with the above specific directions.

¶34

Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned

¶35

counsel for the petitioner for immediate production before the Family Court.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

R. BASANT (Judge)

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge)

¶40

Nan/

¶41

//true copy//

¶42

P.S. to Judge

Sri.Abdu Rahiman v. Chatheri Hussain Musaliyar & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Abdu Rahiman v. Chatheri Hussain Musaliyar & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.G.Saji Vs Smt.Shiji.S.

Anupama Vs Suseelan

Soman Vs Anitha & Others

Saheer Vs Asmabi

Mini Ashok Madhav Vs Ashok Madhav

Aju Vijayamohanan Pillai Vs State of Kerala & Others