Disposed

Sheeja Sreekumar v. Sheeja Krishnan

Kerala HC5 Apr 2024OP (FC)/32/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution dispute over sale of the judgment debtor's property at a fixed upset price far below market value. The High Court quashed the Family Court orders rejecting adjournment, commissioner appointment and valuation review, directing fresh valuation by an Advocate Commissioner with accredited valuer within three months.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P19-P21 quashed; Family Court directed to reconsider Exts.P14-P16, appoint Advocate Commissioner with accredited valuer to value property, complete within three months.

Sheeja Sreekumar Vs Sheeja Krishnan — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶2

¶3

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY,THE5THDAYOFAPRIL2024/16THCHAITHRA,1946

¶4

OP (FC) NO. 32 OF 2024

¶5

ORDERDATED07.11.2023INEANo.4/2023INOPNO.480OF
2013OFFAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONERINEAS/JUDGMENTDEBTORNO.3IN
EP/RESPONDENTNO.3INO.P:

¶7

SHEEJASREEKUMAR
AGED60YEARS

¶8

W/OLATESREEKUMAR,ROHINIHOUSE,VADAKKEDATHUKAVU
P.O.,ERATHUVILLAGE,ADOORTALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT,PIN-691551

¶9

BYADVS.
MANUVYASANPETER
P.B.KRISHNAN
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SABUGEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTINE.A&NOTPARTYINE.A/DECREE
HOLDER&JUDGMENTDEBTORNO.4INE.P/PETITIONERINO.P&
NOTPARTYINO.P:

¶11

1SHEEJAKRISHNAN
AGED40YEARS
D/ON.BALAKRISHNAKURUP,REP.BYHERPOWEROF
ATTORNEYHOLDER,N.BALAKRISHNAKURUP,KARTHIKA
HOUSE,VADAKKEDATHUKAVUP.O.,ERATHUVILLAGE,ADOOR
TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT.,PIN-691551

¶12

2SOURAVKRISHNA
(MINORREPRESENTEDBYCOURTGUARDIAN),S/OS.VISHNU,
ROHINIHOUSE,VADAKKEDATHUKAVUP.O.,ERATHUVILLAGE,
ADOORTALUK,PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT.,PIN-691551

¶13

BYADVS.

¶14

MANURAMACHANDRANFORPARTYRESP.

¶15

OP (FC) No.32 of 2024

¶16

¶17

M.KIRANLAL(K/963/2009)
T.S.SARATH(K/257/2012)
R.RAJESH(VARKALA)(K/78/2000)
SAMEERMNAIR(K/000481/2017)
SAILAKSHMIMENON(K/1518/2021)
SMT.AKHILAB.(K/000259/2019)
JOTHISHAK.A.(K/123/2022)

¶18

THISOP(FAMILYCOURT)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON05.04.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP (FC) No.32 of 2024

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner herein is the mother-in-law of the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent is the minor child of the 1st respondent. It appears that there were disputes between the parties and a petition was filed by the 1st respondent seeking refund of gold and cash. The parties entered into a compromise and consequent thereto, Rs.28 Lakhs was ordered to be paid to the 1st respondent. It appears that the directions were not complied with and consequently, an Execution Petition was filed by the 1st respondent. An item of property owned by the petitioner was proceeded with. They contend that the aforesaid property having an extent of 4.66 Ares and falling in Re Survey No. 5/3/3 of Enathu village had a market value of about Rs.1.25 Crores. However, the upset price was fixed by the learned Single Judge at Rs.50,000/-. Faced with the said circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P14 application to adjourn the sale, Ext.P15 application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner along with an accredited valuer to ascertain certain aspects with regard to the value of property and Ext.P16 application to review the fixing of upset price at Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner states that by Ext.P19 order, the learned Family Court came to

¶23

OP (FC) No.32 of 2024

¶24

¶25

the conclusion that there was absolutely no reason to adjourn the sale and the requests were rejected by Ext.P20 and Ext.P21 orders.

¶26

When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the value of the property fixed is abysmally low. It is submitted that they have no objection in setting aside Exts. P19 to P21 and in directing the Family Court to allow the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner along with an accredited valuer to ascertain the value of

¶27

the property and thereafter proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with law.

¶28

We have considered the submissions advanced.

¶29

Having considered the submissions and having perused the

¶30

entire records we are inclined to accept the prayer sought for in this petition.

¶31

In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of by ordering as under:

¶32

Exts. P19 to P21 orders will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to reconsider Exts. P14 to P16 application and to proceed with the execution proceedings by

¶33

OP (FC) No.32 of 2024

¶34

¶35

appointing an Advocate Commissioner along with an accredited valuer to value the property. The entire exercise shall be concluded, in any event, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this

¶36

judgment.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE

Sd/-

P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

IAP

¶43

OP (FC) No.32 of 2024

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 32/2024

¶46

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶47

ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHECOMPROMISEPETITIONI.A
NO.188OF2016INO.PNO.480OF2013ONTHE
FILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶48

ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED06.02.2016
INO.PNO.480OF2013ONTHEFILEOFTHE
FAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEDECREEDATED06.02.2016IN
O.PNO.480OF2013ONTHEFILEOFTHE
FAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶49

ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFE.PNO.49OF2016DATED
31.10.2016ONTHEFILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP5TRUECOPYOFTHEPROCLAMATIONDATED
22.10.2019INE.PNO.49OF2016ONTHEFILE
OFTHEFAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP6TRUECOPYOFTHEOBJECTIONDATED22.05.2019
INE.PNO.49OF2016ONTHEFILEOFTHE
FAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶50

ExhibitP7TRUECOPYOFE.ANO.76OF2019DATED
30.10.2019INE.PNO.49OF2016ONTHEFILE
OFTHEFAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP8TRUECOPYOFE.ANO.77OF2019DATED
30.10.2019INE.PNO.49OF2016ONTHEFILE
OFTHEFAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶51

ExhibitP9TRUECOPYOFTHEMEMORANDUMOFO.P(FC)NO.
650OF2019ONTHEFILEOFTHEHON'BLEHIGH
COURTOFKERALA
ExhibitP10TRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED17.01.2020
INO.P(FC)NO.650OF2019ONTHEFILEOF

¶52

OP (FC) No.32 of 2024

¶53

¶54

THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶55

ExhibitP11TRUECOPYOFE.ANO.106OF2019INE.PNO.
49OF2016ONTHEFILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP12TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED13.10.2023IN
E.PNO.49OF2016ONTHEFILEOFTHEFAMILY
COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP13TRUECOPYOFTHEOBJECTIONDATED01.04.2023
SUBMITTEDBYCOURTGUARDIANINE.PNO.49OF
2016ONTHEFILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP14TRUECOPYOFE.ANO.4OF2023DATED
31.10.2023INE.PNO.49OF2016ONTHEFILE
OFTHEFAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP15TRUECOPYOFE.ANO.5OF2023DATED
31.10.2023INE.PNO.49OF2016ONTHEFILE
OFTHEFAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP16TRUECOPYOFE.ANO.6OF2023DATED
31.10.2023INE.PNO.49OF2016ONTHE
FILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP17TRUECOPYOFTHEOBJECTIONDATED03.11.2023
INE.ANO.5OF2023INE.PNO.49OF2016
ONTHEFILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP18TRUECOPYOFTHEOBJECTIONDATED03.11.2023
INE.ANO.6OF2023INE.PNO.49OF2016
ONTHEFILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP19TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED07.11.2023IN
E.ANO.4OF2023INE.PNO.49OF2016ON
THEFILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP20TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED07.11.2023IN
E.ANO.5OF2023INE.PNO.49OF2016ON
THEFILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,

¶56

OP (FC) No.32 of 2024

¶57

¶58

PATHANAMTHITTA

¶59

ExhibitP21TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED07.11.2023IN
E.ANO.6OF2023INE.PNO.49OF2016ON
THEFILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP22TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED07.11.2023IN
E.PNO.49OF2016ONTHEFILEOFTHEFAMILY
COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA
ExhibitP23TRUECOPYOFTHEWARRANTOFSALEOF
PROPERTYINEXECUTION
ExhibitP24TRUECOPYOFE.ANO.10OF2023DATED
29.11.2023INE.PNO.49OF2016ONTHE
FILEOFTHEFAMILYCOURT,PATHANAMTHITTA

Sheeja Sreekumar v. Sheeja Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeja Sreekumar v. Sheeja Krishnan

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

Dr.Dilna.M Vs Dr.P.Sarat Chandran

Surendran K.P. Vs Sathi N.B.

Joseph Joseph Vs Miriam Tina Francis

Shibin S.B Vs District Police Chief

Muhammed Shafeekhan S Vs State of Kerala

Sudha Kumari P.K Vs the City Police Commissioner