Remanded

Kavitha, v. Raju

Kerala HC24 Mar 2021OP (FC)/196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directed the Family Court to reconsider an execution application by allowing the petitioner to substitute attached property with security. The Court set aside the impugned order, directing the lower court to accept certified copies and revenue records from the petitioner despite her lack of original documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Family Court directed to reconsider substitution of attachment with security after considering affidavit and certified documents.

Kavitha, Vs Raju — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943

¶7

OP (FC).No.196 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.A.NO.216/2020 IN E.P.NO.6/2019 IN O.P.NO.342/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR

¶9

--------

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

KAVITHA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.PRABHAKARAN AND W/O.RAJU, NEDIYAMBATH HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.K.V.WINSTON SMT.ANU JACOB

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

RAJU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.NELLIPPARAMBIL GOPALAN, VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 642.

¶15

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (FC).No.196/2021 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 24th day of March 2021

¶19

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶20

The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor. Challenging the decree, she filed Mat.Appeal No.374/2018. In the said Mat.Appeal, an interim order was passed staying the execution of the decree in O.P.No.342/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur on condition that she furnishes security for the entire decree amount to the satisfaction of the Family Court.

¶21

The property of the petitioner is under attachment. It appears that there was an attachment. The petitioner furnished security. The security appears to be a property obtained by the petitioner based on a partition deed. According to the petitioner, the original of the deed is with the other executant of the partition deed. The Family Court refused to accept the security as the petitioner failed to produce the original of the title deed and other revenue records. According to the petitioner, she is not in possession of the original deed and she can produce only the certified copy of the same.

¶22

OP (FC).No.196/2021 3

¶23

Having considered the submission of the petitioner, we are of the view that the Family Court shall consider as to whether the security furnished by the petitioner is sufficient or not. In view of the submission that the petitioner is not in possession of the original document, she shall file an affidavit to that effect and produce the certified copy. The petitioner shall also produce all revenue records relating to the property. The Family Court is, therefore, directed to consider E.A.No.216/2020 to substitute the property under attachment with the security to be furnished. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside. The matter shall be reconsidered by the Family Court afresh, in the light of the directions as above.

¶24

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

¶32

OP (FC).No.196/2021 4

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT	P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED OCTOBER 27,2017 IN ORIGINAL PETITION NUMBER 163/2015 AND 342/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8 FEBRUARY 2019 IN I.A.NO.1278/2018 IN M.A.T. APPEAL NO.374/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT	P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3 AUGUST 2019 IN E.A.NO.206/2019 IN E.P.NO.6/2019 IN O.P.NO.342/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT	P4 A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED PARTITION DEED NUMBER 3492/2015 OF THE SRO, AYYANTHOLE.
EXHIBIT	P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SHOWING THE FAIR VALUE FOR THE LAND FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT	P6 A TRUE COPY OF E.A.NO.216/2020 IN E.P.NO.6/2019 IN O.P.NO.342/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JANUARY 19, 2021 IN E.A.NO.216/2020 IN E.P.NO.6/2019 IN O.P.NO.342/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.

Kavitha, v. Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavitha, v. Raju

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

Anoop, Vs Raji George

Darwin Mathew Vs C.S.Rajan

Bhavya S. Vs Sujesh J.

Jose Lopez Vs Stbert Kumar

Ashwani K. Nair Vs Fenil C.K.

Shyju K Vs Nil