Remanded

Thomas Pappy v. Lillikutty Varghese

Kerala HC20 Jun 2012OP (FC)/162/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order of attachment before judgment passed in the schedule properties of the father, as the lower court failed to evaluate individual liabilities of the maternal grandfather before imposing attachment on his assets over ₹44 million to secure the wife's claims.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.11.2011 in I.A.No.3232 of 2011 is set aside; the court is directed to reconsider the matter afresh expeditiously, allowing both parties to produce documents; an injunction restraini

Thomas Pappy Vs Lillikutty Varghese — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/30TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶6

OP (FC).No. 162 of 2012 (R)

¶7

IA.NO.3232/2011 IN OP.1163/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONER: 2ND RESPONDENT:

¶9

THOMAS PAPPY, AGED 78 YEARS VILAYIL TP HOUSE, VEDARAPLAVU P.O., CHARUMOODU PEROOR KARAZHMA MURI, THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE MAVELIKKARA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP

SMT.NAVA VARGHESE

SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENTS:

LILLIKUTTY VARGHESE

¶15

NADAVALLIL THUNDIL VEEDU, PUNNATHALATHAZHAM P.O. CHENGANNUR TALUK, VENMONY VILLAGE - 689 509.

¶16

JOSE PAPPY

¶17

VILAYIL TP HOUSE, VEDARAPLAVU P.O. CHARUMOODU PEROOR KARAZHMA MURI, THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE MAVELIKKARA -690 530.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB CHACKO

¶19

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶21

O.P.(F.C.) NO. 162 OF 2012 R

¶22

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2012

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶25

Lillykutty Varghese (first respondent) filed O.P.No.1163 of 2011 before the Family Court, Alappuzha, against her husband Jose Pappy and Thomas Pappy, who is the father of Jose Pappy. The Original Petition was filed for realisation of patrimony, value of gold ornaments and the salary paid by the wife to the husband. The total amount claimed was `44,85,976/-.

¶26

I.A.No.3232 of 2011 was filed by Lillykutty Varghese for attachment before judgment of two items of immovable property. Thomas Pappy filed objection in I.A.No.3232 of 2011 contending that the properties sought to be attached belonged to him and not to Jose Pappy, his son. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the properties originally belonged to Thomas Pappy and he executed a settlement in favour of his son Jose Pappy on 15.5.2004. On 26.11.2007, Jose Pappy transferred the property to

¶27

O.P.(F.C.) NO. 162 OF 2012 R

¶28

:: 2 ::

¶29

Thomas Pappy. The dates on which the transfers took place were not mentioned in the objection filed by Thomas Pappy in I.A.No.3232 of 2011. He also did not produce the documents before the court below. The court below passed an order dated 28.11.2011 allowing I.A.No.3232 of 2011 and directing the respondent to furnish security for an amount of `44,93,776/-.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if all the averments in the Original Petition are taken as correct, the liability of Thomas Pappy would not come to `44,93,776/- and the court below was not justified in passing an order of attachment to that extent. The learned counsel also submitted that Jose Pappy having transferred the property to Thomas Pappy, that property cannot be attached before judgment in respect of the liability claimed against Jose Pappy since the transfer took place before institution of the Original Petition. The counsel also relied on the decision in Rajan v. Jayashree Nayar (2010 (1) KLT 142).

¶31

The court below did not consider the question whether the second respondent in the Original Petition (Thomas Pappy) would

¶32

O.P.(F.C.) NO. 162 OF 2012 R

¶33

:: 3 ::

¶34

be liable for the whole amount claimed in the petition or whether his liability even as claimed would extent to a lesser amount. If so, attachment for the whole amount claimed in the Original Petition cannot be made in respect of the property held by Thomas Pappy.

¶35

For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 28.11.2011 in I.A.No.3232 of 2011 is set aside. The court below shall consider the matter afresh expeditiously. Both parties will be entitled to produce documents to substantiate their claims. To facilitate a proper consideration of I.A.No.3232 of 2011, there will be an injunction restraining the appellant (Thomas Pappy) from alienating the attachment schedule properties till I.A.No.3232 of 2011 is considered and disposed of.

¶36

The Original Petition (F.C.) is disposed of as above.

¶37

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶38

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶39

ahz/

Thomas Pappy v. Lillikutty Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Pappy v. Lillikutty Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaison Antony & Others Vs Cicy Thomas

Hari Kumar Vs Sudha B

Babu Vs Brinta

Sudheeshkumar and Another Vs Anu.K.Mohanan

Abdul Vahab Vs Shajida

Preetha P.Nair Vs T.S.Gangadharan