Kundanath Jameela vs Kunhimoideen @ Bava
2021 Latest Caselaw 3130 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                              &

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

                    OP (FC).No.24 OF 2020

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 487/2017 DATED 13-11-
              2019 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR


PETITIONER:

              KUNDANATH JAMEELA, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.KOYAMU
              HAJI, KUNDANATH HOUSE, ULLANAM AMSOM DESOM,
              ULLANAM P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK,
              PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION LIMIT.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
              SRUTHY N. BHAT

RESPONDENTS:

     1        KUNHIMOIDEEN @ BAVA, AGED 62 YEARS,
              S/O.THALEKKARA BARANKUTTY, NERUVA AMSOM DESOM,
              CHERAMANGALAM SOUTH, NEDUVA P.O., TIRURANGADI
              TALUK, -676 303.

     2        THALEKARA MUSTHAFA, AGED 59 YEARS,
              S/O.THALEKKARA BARANKUTTY, ULLANAM AMSOM
              DESOM, PALATHINGAL, ULLANAM P.O., TIRURANGADI
              TALUK, -676 303.

     3        THALEKARA UMMAYYA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.CHEMBAN
              MUHAMED, A.P.BAZAR, MUNNIYUR AMSOM DESOM,
              MUNNIYUR PO., PIN-676 306.
 OP (FC).No.24 OF 2020

                            ..2..


       4      THALEKARA SULAIKHA, AGED 56 YEARS,
              S/O.THALEKKARA, BARANKUTTY, MAPPUTT ROAD,
              PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM, PARAPPANANGADI
              P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, PIN-676 303.

       5      THALEKARA AYISA BEEVI, AGED 54 YEARS
              W/O.MOIDEEN KOYA, MUNAR MANZIL, NALLALAM
              AMSOM DESOM, KOLATHARA P.O., KOZHIKODE
              DISTRICT, PIN-673027.

       6      THALEKARA NOORJAHAN, AGED 49 YEARS
              W/O.ALAVI, A.P.BAZAR, MUNNIYUR AMSOM DESOM,
              MUNNIYUR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, PIN-676
              306.

       7      THALEKARA KHAIRUNNISSA, AGED 46 YEARS
              W/O.ABDUSALIM, PALAKKAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
              POOKAYIL, TIRUR-676 107.

       8      PANAKKAL SAIDALAVI, AGED 54 YEARS
              H/O.THALEKARA NABEESU, KODINHI AMSOM DESOM,
              KODINHI P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK-676 306.

       9      AZEEZ PANAKKAL, AGED 24 YEARS
              S/O.SAIDALAVI, KODINHI AMSOM DESOM, KODINHI
              P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK-676 306.

       10     SHERIN PANAKKAL, AGED 24 YEARS
              D/O.SAIDALAVI, KODINHI AMSOM DESOM, KODINHI
              P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK-676 306.


     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.24 OF 2020

                              ..3..




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of January 2021

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

This original petition was filed challenging the common

order dated 13.11.2019 of the Family Court, Tirur, in the

applications for amendment and impleadment.

2. The petitioner is the claimant in O.P. No. 487 of

2017 on the file of the Family Court, Tirur. That is a monetary

claim. The claim was filed to recover the value of gold

ornaments and also the return for money.

3. Along with the original petition, an interlocutory

application was filed for attachment before judgment, vide, I.A.

No. 1203/2017. That was allowed. Subsisting the attachment,

it appears that the property was alienated. The petitioner,

thereafter, filed an application to implead the purchaser of the OP (FC).No.24 OF 2020

..4..

property and also sought an amendment to the effect that

alienation was fraudulent. Those applications have been

dismissed by the above said common order.

The application ought to have been allowed by the Family

Court. The question is whether such impleadment is necessary

or not. We are of the view that a third party whose right is

being effected based on the orders of the Court, should be

heard, especially when the petitioner has a case that such a

transaction was fraudulent. In such circumstances, for proper

adjudication of the issues involved and in the interest of the

justice, it is necessary to implead such persons, whose right will

be ultimately affected. Further, in the absence of such parties,

the Court cannot adjudicate the issue as to whether transaction

itself was to defeat the right of the petitioner or not, if

ultimately a decree is passed in favour of the petitioner herein.

In the light of the facts and circumstances, we allow this OP (FC).No.24 OF 2020

..5..

original petition and set aside the impugned order. The petition

filed for amendment and impleadment are allowed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

PR OP (FC).No.24 OF 2020

..6..

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR AS O.P.NO.487 OF 2017.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS I.A.NO.1298 OF 2019 IN O.P.NO.487 OF 2017 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS I.A.NO.1299 OF 2019 IN O.P.NO.487 OF 2017 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.NO.1298 OF 2019 AND I.A.NO.1299 OF 2019 IN O.P.NO.487 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR DATED 13.11.2019.