Kerala High Court
Divya Cyriac vs Ejo P.J on 19 February, 2021
O.P.(FC).266/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942
OP (FC).No.266 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 28/2018 OF FAMILY COURT,
MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
DIVYA CYRIAC,
AGED 30 YEARS,
D/O.CYRIAC, PALLATHUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
PANTHRANDAM MILE, MARKET JUNCTION, PALA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 EJO P.J.,
S/O.JOY, PARIYARATH HOUSE, PERIYAPPURAM,
ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK-686 667.
2 JOY,
PARIYARATH HOUSE, PERIYAPPURAM,
ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK-686 667.
3 MINI TITTY,
AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O.TITTY K.THOMAS, KANNOTHARA HOUSE,
MEENADAM KARA AND VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT HO NO.497/5, JALANDHAR P.O.,
BABULAB SING NAGAR, JALANDHAR VILLAGE,
JALANDHAR DISTRICT, PUNJAB-144 008.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.T.JEEJAN
R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.VINOD KUMAR
R3 BY ADV. SRI.VINUCHAND
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(FC).266/2020 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This matter is related to dismissal of an amendment
petition in a pending original petition for recovery of
money and gold ornaments. The amendment sought to
incorporate prayer for injunction as well as
declaration that transaction effected by 'A3' sale deed
is fraudulent. This application has been dismissed
holding that in O.P.(FC).No.68/2019, this Court
observed that such transaction is bonafide transaction.
2. The Family Court court could not have rejected
the amendment petition, merely relying on the judgment
of this Court. The amendment petition is required for
a proper adjudication of the dispute involved. The
petitioner's claim is that the transaction now effected
is only to intend to defate the claim. In such
circumstances, it is within the scope of the main
prayer. The Family Court ought to have allowed such
application. No doubt any finding regarding the nature
of transaction in the earlier O.P(FC).No.68/2019 can be
relied by the Family court as a piece of evidence. But
merely because of there is a chance of production of
such evidence by the opponent cannot result in
declining the prayer for amendment. In such
circumstances, the impugned order is set aside.
Amendment petition is allowed. Respondents are
permitted to raise additional pleadings and to defend
the prayer sought in the amendment petition in
accordance with law. Amendment shall be carried out
within 15 days from the date of receipt of this
judgment.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
DG
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP
NO.28/2018.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION
IN I.A.NO.31/2020.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN
I.A.NO.31/2020.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26.03.2019 IN OP(FC)NO.68/2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2020.
