Partly allowed

Lopamudra Devi v. K.Harikumar

Kerala HC19 Mar 2021Mat.Appeal/489/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This matrimonial appeal challenges the Family Court's judgment declining to set aside a sale deed. The High Court remanded the matter for a trial on the issue of whether the impassability property is partible, while dismissing other reliefs.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to Family Court to decide if item No.1 property is partible and consider appellant's rights under Ext.A2 sale deed.

Lopamudra Devi Vs K.Harikumar — Partition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

Mat.Appeal.No.489 OF 2014

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 897/2010 DATED 14-03-2014 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

LOPAMUDRA DEVI AGED 37 YEARS D/O.CHELLAMMA, VADAKKEKANDATHIL, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., HARIPAD, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SMT.KEERTHI K.NARAYANAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 K.HARIKUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, THIRUVATHIRA, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 561.

¶14

2 P.NARAYANA KAIMAL AGED 48 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, LAKSHIM NIVAS, PADINJATTUMKARA SOURTH, THURAVOOR P.O., ALAPUZHA -688 532.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Mat.Appeal No.489/2014

¶18

-:2:-

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2021

¶21

A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.

¶22

This appeal arises from the judgment of the Family Court, Alappuzha in OP No.897/2010 dated 14/3/2014. The above original petition was filed by the appellant herein to set aside the sale deeds, for partition of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. Item No.1 originally belonged to Sri.K.Harikumar and Sri.K.Narayana Kaimal, respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter, share of the 2^nd respondent was purchased by the appellant as per Ext.A2 sale deed. According to Sri.Harikumar, he had paid the entire sale consideration and the appellant is only a name lender.

¶23

The marital relationship between the appellant and the 1^st respondent came to an end through a decree of divorce. Thereafter the present petition was filed. In the present petition, a claim for compensation of

¶24

`4,00,000/- was also raised. Sri.Harikumar, the 1^st respondent, has transferred the entire share in favour of the 2^nd respondent. According to the appellant, it

¶25

Mat.Appeal No.489/2014

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

was only to defeat her monetary claim. That is why she sought relief to set aside the sale deed.

¶28

The Family Court found that an earlier claim for monetary relief has been dismissed and that there was no scope for setting aside the deed executed by 1^st respondent in favour of the 2^nd respondent. However, while making the said exercise, Family Court omitted to note the claim of the appellant based on Ext.A2 sale deed. The question that ought to have been considered by the Family Court was whether item No.1 of plaint schedule is partible or not?

¶29

Admittedly, the name of the appellant is reflected in Ext.A2 sale deed. Whether the appellant is having right or not was not considered by the Family Court. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that for the limited purpose of deciding the issue with regard to item No.1 of plaint schedule, the matter is to be remanded back. We frame the following issue for consideration after remand.

¶30

(i) Whether item No.1 of plaint schedule is partible or not?

¶31

In regard to other relief sought for by the appellant, we find that Family Court was justified in declining the relief as her monetary claim has already

¶32

Mat.Appeal No.489/2014

¶33

-:4:-

¶34

been dismissed vide judgment in OP (HMA) No.520/2009. Further, the appellant had not made any case to sustain the claim of compensation. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the other findings. The matter is therefore remanded back to the Family Court to try the above issue.

¶35

Appeal in all other respects is dismissed except to the extent of remanding the matter for trying the issue as above.

¶36

Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 20/5/2021. The Family Court shall endeavour to dispose of the matter within a further period of six months.

¶37

Both parties are free to adduce fresh evidence in regard to the above issue.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶43

Rp True Copy

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

PS to Judge

Lopamudra Devi v. K.Harikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lopamudra Devi v. K.Harikumar

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

Joy John, Vs Shelly

Rajeesh Vs Archana

V.K.Devarajan Vs the Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificates

Varun S. Nair Vs Ramya S.Nair

Saira Vs Shameera

Usha Vs Jose