Dismissed

Karthyayani Ramakrishnan v. Sajitha K.R.

Kerala HC2 Mar 2021OP (FC)/100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a Family Court order granting a temporary injunction to restrain alienation of property. The High Court held that the injunction was aimed at protecting the subject matter until disposal, did not infringe residence rights under Maintenance Tribunal orders, and dismissed the petition as lacking merit to invoke Article 227 jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the temporary injunction order is dismissed.

Karthyayani Ramakrishnan Vs Sajitha K.R. — Property and Title | 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

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

OP (FC).No.100 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.9.2020 IN IA 1/2020 IN OP 185/2020 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KARTHYAYANI RAMAKRISHNAN AGED 76 YEARS W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAN,NARIYAMPULLY HOUSE,ELAVALLY NORTH POST,ELAVALLY VILLAGE,CHAVAKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680511.

¶11

2 MOHINI.N.R, AGED 58 YEARS D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAN AND W/O.LATE VIJAYAN, ELAVALLY NORTH POST,ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680511.

¶12

3 SANTHINI.N.R, AGED 55 YEARS D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAN AND W/O ASHOKAN, AMAZHAPPULLY HOUSE,PERAMANGALAM POST AND VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

4 SHEELA.N.R, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAN AND W/O LATE JANANDHANAN,KONDAPRASSERY HOUSE, ELAVALLY POST AND VILLAGE,CHAVAKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISRTRICT-680511.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN

¶15

O.P.(FC).No.100/2021

¶16

¶17

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶18

SAJITHA K.R. AGED 34 YEARS W/O.RANJITH,KURUMBUR HOUSE,ELAVALLY NORTH POST,ELAVALLY VILLAGE,CHAVAKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680511.

¶19

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O.P.(FC).No.100/2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of March 2021

¶24

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J

¶25

This original petition was filed challenging the order passed in I.A.Nos.1/2020 in O.P.No.185/2020. The above IA was filed by Sajitha K.R, the respondent herein. She was the daughter-in-law of the 1^st petitioner. Sajitha filed the original petition for specific performance and prohibitory injunction.

¶26

I.A.No.1/2020 was filed for temporary injunction to restrain the petitioners herein from alienating or transferring the petition schedule property. She filed yet another application as I.A.No.8/2020 to restrain the Cooperative Bank from releasing the documents in favour of the petitioners herein. Both the applications were tried together and by a common order of the Family Court, I.A. 1/2020 for temporary injunction was allowed in part and I.A.No.8/2020 was dismissed.

¶27

We heard the counsel for the petitioners and respondent. The short issue in this case is whether any interference is warranted or not in the order passed by the Family Court granting temporary injunction.

¶28

The main petition was filed for specific performance and prohibitory injunction. The court below adverted to the Prima facie case projected in the matter. The Family Court also found that if the property is allowed

¶29

O.P.(FC).No.100/2021

¶30

¶31

to be alienated, it would frustrate the main relief sought by Sajitha, the respondent herein.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 passed Ext.P5 and P6 orders protecting the right of the 1^st petitioner to reside in the house which is the subject matter of the present dispute and therefore the order now impugned will have an over riding effect of those orders. We find that the apprehension expressed is unfounded. The Family Court has not passed any order in regard to the occupation of the residential building. The Family Court passed an order restraining the 1^st petitioner from encumbering or transferring the possession of the property to some other parties.

¶33

In such circumstances, the said order is only to protect the subject matter in tact till the disposal of the original petition before the Family Court. We don't find any merit in the original petition so as to invoke our power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

The original petition is hence dismissed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Dr. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

True copy

P.A. To Judge

O.P.(FC).No.100/2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.185/2020 DATED 27/01/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1/2020 IN O.P.NO.185/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 11/02/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.P. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 27/03/2019 ISSUED FROM AMALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.K.DIS/10075/2018/C2 DATED 09/12/2019 PASSED BY THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL,THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/09/2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR.

Karthyayani Ramakrishnan v. Sajitha K.R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthyayani Ramakrishnan v. Sajitha K.R.

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

Bindu Vs Jojo

Dr.Smitha Vs Subeesh

Shajeena Vs Anshad

Jameela Vs Hamsa

Chinnamma Scaria Vs Benoy Scaria

Chinnu, Vs Dr.Sija