P.C.Saibu vs Kandiyil Meethal Shareer
2021 Latest Caselaw 7929 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                   &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

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

                         OP (FC).No.69 OF 2019

  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
                               ----------


PETITIONER/S:

                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.

                BY ADV. SRI.T.ASAFALI

RESPONDENT/S:

                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.

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

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-03-2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.69/2019                       2

                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of March 2021

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.

2. 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.

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.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

ln

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

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. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE