This appeal challenged the Family Court's decree ordering appellants to return gold ornaments allegedly misappropriated. The High Court found the appellants failed to provide substantial evidence and dismissed their appeal, upholding the recovery order.
Appeal dismissed; Family Court's order recovering gold ornament value stands affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1935
Mat.Appeal.No. 292 of 2008 (B)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 17/2007 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, MOHANA VILASAM, ULLANNOOR MURI, KULANADA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
2. MOHANAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT DO. DO.
3. RETNAMMA, RESIDING AT DO. DO.
BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
SREEJA R. CHANDRAN, SREEJA SADANAM, NJETTOOR MURI, KULANADA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM PACHAYIL
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. ================================== Mat. Appeal No. 292 OF 2008
=======================
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, J.
This appeal arises from the judgment of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in OP No.17/07. The OP was filed by the respondent against the appellants.
6,31,256/- towards her claim for return of value of 87¾ sovereigns of gold ornaments and 50,000/- allegedly received by the 1st appellant from her. The Family Court by the impugned judgment decreed the OP directing the appellants to pay the amount of 5,81,256/- towards the value of the gold and negatived her monetary claim for recovery of 50,000/-. It is aggrieved by this judgment, the appeal is filed.Mat.Appeal No.292/08 : 2 :
purchased from Rajesh Jewellery, Pandalam. According to her, the same was entrusted to the appellants and they had misappropriated 87¾ sovereigns of gold. It was on that basis, she sought recovery of `5,81,256/- towards its value. As far as the quantity of the ornaments that were possessed by the respondent is concerned, that case was substantiated by Ext.A2, the estimate issued by the jeweller which was proved by CPW2, the jeweller himself and Ext.A3, the wedding photograph. In addition to that, the oral evidence of the 1st appellant also substantiated her claim.
Mat.Appeal No.292/08
: 3 :
Mat.Appeal No.292/08
: 4 :
themselves instead what they contended was that 62 sovereigns of gold ornaments brought by the respondent were returned to the jeweller. Therefore, the appellants did not have a consistent case on this aspect. It was in the light of these evidence that the Family Court accepted the case of the respondent on the question of entrustment also. Evidently therefore, on both the issues, viz., on the quantity of gold that was possessed by the respondent and also on the issue of entrustment and misappropriation, satisfactory evidence was let in by the respondent justifying its acceptance by the Family Court and also passing of the decree in her favour.
We do not find any substance in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE
Rp
//True Copy//
PA TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court was justified in accepting the respondent's claim for recovery of gold ornaments and dismissing the appellants' defense.
SANTHOSH KUMAR
MOHANAN PILLAI
RETNAMMA
SREEJA R. CHANDRAN
ANTONY DOMINIC
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court