Father-in-law sued son-in-law on an agreement to return 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments given at marriage; daughter later died. Both lower courts decreed the suit. The High Court held the agreement was not between parties to a marriage, so civil court jurisdiction stood, upheld proof of the agreement, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 25TH POUSHA, 1945
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.3.2021 IN A.S.NO.4/2017 OF
DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.11.2016 IN O.S.NO.386/2015
OF MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
ABDUL RAHIMAN
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O SAINUDHEEN, RESIDING NEAR GVHSS,
MOGRAL VILLAGE & POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT PIN-671 321
BY ADVS.
SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
K.P.ANTONY BINU
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
ANWAR K.A
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT VALACHAL
HOUSE, MOGRAL VILLAGE & POST, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN-
671321
BY ADVS.
P.B.KRISHNAN
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SABU GEORGE
B.ANUSREE
MANU VYASAN PETER
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.01.2024, THE COURT ON 15.1.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2024
This Regular Second Appeal originally filed along with C.M.C.P.No.20/2021, arises out of decree and judgment in A.S.No.4/2017 on the files of the District Court, Kasaragod, whereby, the learned District Judge confirmed the decree and judgment in O.S.No.386/2015, dated 14.11.2016 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod. Defendant is the appellant herein and plaintiff is the respondent herein.
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 3
ornaments alleged to be given by him to his daughter at the time of marriage between the daughter and the defendant. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the marriage between the defendant and the daughter of the plaintiff was solemnized on 30.5.2011 and thereafter, the daughter of the plaintiff committed suicide on 25.5.2014. Since the defendant swallowed 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments, entrusted by the plaintiff to his daughter at the time of marriage, during the period of their joint residence, on demand, the defendant executed an agreement on 28.6.2014, agreeing to return 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments taken by the defendant, in three installments. It was agreed to return 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments within 2 months from the date of the agreement, 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments within 6 months from the date of the agreement and the remaining 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments within one year from the date of agreement. Since the defendant failed to perform the contractual obligations, the present suit was filed after issuing legal notice of demand.
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 4
defendant. The consideration set forth in the agreement also was denied. Entrustment of 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the daughter of the plaintiff and its misappropriation by the defendant also were denied. Question regarding jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the matter also was raised.
In the result, this suit is decreed with costs as follows:
1. The defendant is directed to return 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the plaintiff on or before 15.1.2017.
2. In case, if the defendant fails to return the gold ornaments within the time prescribed, he shall pay an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as the value of gold ornaments with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of suit till the date of realisation of the amount.
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 5
3. If the amount is not been paid on or before 15-012017, the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree executed through due process of law.
4. Defendant to do pay the costs of this suit.
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 6
agreement, is the subject matter of the lis and therefore, civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the same. The learned counsel also read out relevant evidence of PW1, PW2 and DW1, to hold that Ext.A1 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. He argued further that the first witness in the agreement is none other than brother of the defendant. But the defendant, who disputed the agreement even not examined his brother to upset the agreement. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, PW2, categorically supported the execution of Ext.A1 supported by the evidence given by PW1, as well. He also submitted that, going by the evidence given by DW1 also, the execution of the agreement stands proved and therefore, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly granted decree in favour of the plaintiff and the said finding does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
1) Whether the finding of the trial court and the appellate court that the suit is not barred under Section 7(1) of the Family
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 7
Courts Act, 1984, is justifiable?
2) Whether the courts below went wrong in holding that
the plaintiff proved Ext.A1 agreement so as to get the verdicts in his favour?
7. Jurisdiction. —(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall—
(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and
(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.
Explanation.—The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:—
(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 8
of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;
(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person;
(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them;
(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstance arising out of a marital relationship;
(e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person;
(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance;
(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise—
(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 9
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment.
A reading of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, would go to show that a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them or a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstance arising out of a marital relationship (c and d) is within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. This legal position is not in dispute and the learned counsel for the defendant placed judgments of this Court in Leby Issac v. Leena M.Ninan and Others reported in [2005 KHC 960] : [2005 (3) KLT 665] : [2005 (2) KLJ 652] , Suprabha v. Sivaraman reported in [2006 KHC 228] : [2006 (1) KLT 712] : [2006 (1) KLJ 414], Krishna Moorthy v. Soumya Krishnan and Another reported in [2015 (5) KHC 365] : [2015 (4) KLT 471] : [2015 (4) KLJ 477], Janaki Amma and Others v. Renuka Sadanandan and Others reported in [2016 (1) KHC 266] : [2016 (1) KLJ 346] : [2016 (1) KLT 563] , in support of this contention.
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 10
the plaintiff. So, Ext.A1 agreement is not in between the parties to the marriage and an agreement in between the defendant in favour of his wife’s father. If so, it could not be held that the dispute adjudicated by the civil court in the case at hand is one in between the parties to the marriage and the present suit is one arose out of Ext.A1 agreement. Therefore, the concurrent finding rendered by the trial court as well as the appellate court, as regards the question of jurisdiction, does not require any interference.
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 11
of the learned counsel for the defendant was that, Ext.A1 got executed on threat for the purpose of return of gold ornaments. Although the defendant put up a case that Ext.A1 was executed under threat, he did not take any steps to prove the contention. The suggestion made during cross examination of PW2 would show admission of Ext.A1 by the defendant, but on threat. In fact, nothing substantiated to hold that Ext.A1 was executed under threat. Insofar as execution of Ext.A1 is concerned, trial court as well as the appellate court rightly appreciated and re-appreciated the evidence and found that plaintiff successfully proved the execution of Ext.A1. Thus, the trial court rightly granted decree in favour of the plaintiff and the appellate court rightly confirmed the same. Therefore, the decree and judgment under challenge, do not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
In the result, this second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with cost of the plaintiff.
All interlocutory applications pending in this second appeal, stand dismissed.
Registry shall inform this matter to the trial court as well as the appellate court, forthwith and also forward a copy of the
RSA NO. 505 OF 2021 12
decree and judgment to the District Collector, Kasaragod for realisation of the court fee payable, since the appellant/defendant was permitted to institute this second appeal as an indigent person.
Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
Bb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for return of 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments under an agreement is barred by Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Whether the courts below rightly held that the plaintiff proved execution of Ext.A1 agreement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Leby Issac v. Leena M.Ninan and OthersReferred¶12
[2005 KHC 960] : [2005 (3) KLT 665] : [2005 (2) KLJ 652]
Suprabha v. SivaramanReferred¶12
[2006 KHC 228] : [2006 (1) KLT 712] : [2006 (1) KLJ 414]
Krishna Moorthy v. Soumya Krishnan and AnotherReferred¶12
[2015 (5) KHC 365] : [2015 (4) KLT 471] : [2015 (4) KLJ 477]
Janaki Amma and Others v. Renuka Sadanandan and OthersReferred¶12
[2016 (1) KHC 266] : [2016 (1) KLJ 346] : [2016 (1) KLT 563]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Rahiman
Anwar K.A
A. Badharudeen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court