Appeal against Family Court judgment dismissing a suit for recovery of gold ornaments. The High Court upheld the lower court decision finding no evidence of possession or entrustment of the claimed ornaments and no perversity in the findings regarding the marriage claim.
Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment of the Family Court upheld.
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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/20TH MAGHA, 1938
Mat.Appeal.No. 80 of 2005 ( )
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 257/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI DATED 20-01-2005
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SAMEERA, AGED 20 YEARS,
D/O.MUSTHAFA, PUNAKKATTAYIL HOUSE,, KANJIRAMUKKU P.O., MARANCHERI VILLAGE,, PONNANI TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
RESPONDENT(S)/1 & 2ND RESPONDENT:
1. RAFEEQUE, 24 YEARS, S/O.CHERIYA MUHAMMAD, AYILAKKAD P.O. PONNANI,, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, PONNANI TALUK.
2. CHERIYA MUHAMMAD, 53 YEARS, VALIYAKATH HOUSE,, AYILAKKAD, EDAPPAL P.O.,, EDAPPAL VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.S.MAHESWARI R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJID R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.VANDANA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12017, THE COURT ON 09-02-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M. SHAFFIQUE & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
============================
Mat.Appeal No. 80 of 2005
==================
Dated this, the 9th day of February, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
This appeal is filed challenging judgment dated 20/1/2005 in OP No.257/2004 by which a suit for recovery of `2,01,296/- as value of ornaments came to be dismissed by the Family Court,
Manjeri.
Mat.Appeal No.80/05
-:2:-
filed counter statement denying the aforesaid facts. According to him, there was no marriage at all and no such child had been born pursuant to the said marriage. The paternity of the child was disputed. Further, the respondents also denied the fact that 50 sovereigns of gold and another 4 sovereigns were collected by the respondents.
Mat.Appeal No.80/05
-:3:-
stated that the marriage had taken place consequent to a mediation from the Police Station. He admitted that the marriage was from the concerned mosque and based on a mediation. Having regard to the fact that RW1 has admitted the marriage, there is no reason to take a different view in the matter.
Mat.Appeal No.80/05
-:4:-
correctly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record and had come to a finding, which cannot be set aside in this appeal.
In the result, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
Rp
//True Copy//
P.S to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court committed a perversity in rejecting claims for recovery of gold ornaments due to lack of evidence regarding possession and entrustment.
Whether the lower court's finding regarding the marriage validity and the financial position of the appellant warrants interference in appeal.
Whether the appellate court was justified in dismissing the appeal against the dismissal of the suit for recovery of ornaments.
Sameera
Rafeeque
Cheriya Muhammad
A.M. Shaiffique
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
