Dismissed

P.C.Saibu v. Kandiyil Meethal Shareer

Kerala HC8 Mar 2021OP (FC)/69/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Family Court petition seeking to set aside a Commission Report on property valuation. The High Court refused interference under Article 227, holding that valuation disparity is an evidentiary issue resolvable at the final hearing where parties can adduce evidence. The original petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was given liberty to adduce evidence regarding the valuation of the property, but the application to set aside the Commission Report was dismissed.

P.C.Saibu Vs Kandiyil Meethal Shareer — 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

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

OP (FC).No.69 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1029/2018 IN FDIA 1220/2017 IN OP NO.492/2013 DATED 08-08-2018 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

P.C.SAIBU, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.SHAREER, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDNG AT 'JEWELS' (CHERIYATH), P. O. CHOKLI - 670 672, CHOKLI AMSOM, MENAPRAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.ASAFALI

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

KANDIYIL MEETHAL SHAREER, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABOOBACKER, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT 'MAIMI MANZIL', P. O. NALU THARA, IDAYIL PEEDIKA, MAHE, PIN - 673 310.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMESH BABU BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶15

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (FC).No.69/2019 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 8th day of March 2021

¶19

This matter arises from the final decree proceedings. In the final decree proceedings, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the Commission Report. That was not allowed. Instead of setting aside the Commission Report, the Family Court ordered to remit the Commission Report and plan to the Commissioner.

¶20

One of the grounds to file the application to set aside the Commission Report was that there is a disparity in valuation. The dispute in regard to the valuation can be considered by the Family Court at the time of final hearing. Both parties are free to adduce evidence. The Family Court found that there is no necessity to set aside the commission report.

¶21

We will not be justified in interfering with such order invoking the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Parties are given liberty to adduce evidence in regard to the valuation of the property.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

¶29

OP (FC).No.69/2019 3

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.492/2013 DATED 12TH NOVEMBER 2013.
EXHIBIT	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16TH DECEMBER 2016 MADE IN OP NO.492/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERRY.
EXHIBIT	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT	P3 (a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION ACCOUNT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT	P 3 (b)	A TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT	P3 (c)	A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN DATED 23.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT	P 4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED REPORT DATED 25.04.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT	P 4 (a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE SHARE LIST A AND B DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT	P4 (b)	A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED VALUATION ACCOUNT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT	P5	THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8TH AUGUST 2018 MADE IN IA 1220/2018 FDIA NO.1220/2018 IN OP NO.492/2013.

¶33

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL.

¶34

//TRUE COPY//

¶35

P.A.TO JUDGE

P.C.Saibu v. Kandiyil Meethal Shareer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.C.Saibu v. Kandiyil Meethal Shareer

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

Divya Mithran Vs Nithesh E.Narayanan

Sam George Vs Annie Sam

Anson Antony Vs Veena Priya

Gireesh C.L. Vs Simi

Satheesh Kumar Vs K.Balasubramanian

Anuja S. Sasi Vs Sanil K Sadasivan