Kerala High Court
Lopamudra Devi vs K.Harikumar on 19 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Mat.Appeal.No.489 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 897/2010 DATED 14-03-2014 OF FAMILY
COURT, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
LOPAMUDRA DEVI
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O.CHELLAMMA, VADAKKEKANDATHIL, NANGIARKULANGARA
P.O., HARIPAD, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR
SMT.KEERTHI K.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.HARIKUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, THIRUVATHIRA, AMBALAPPUZHA,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 561.
2 P.NARAYANA KAIMAL
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, LAKSHIM NIVAS,
PADINJATTUMKARA SOURTH, THURAVOOR P.O.,
ALAPUZHA -688 532.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.489/2014
-:2:-
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.
This appeal arises from the judgment of the Family
Court, Alappuzha in OP No.897/2010 dated 14/3/2014. The
above original petition was filed by the appellant
herein to set aside the sale deeds, for partition of
item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and for other
reliefs. Item No.1 originally belonged to
Sri.K.Harikumar and Sri.K.Narayana Kaimal, respondents
1 and 2. Thereafter, share of the 2nd respondent was
purchased by the appellant as per Ext.A2 sale deed.
According to Sri.Harikumar, he had paid the entire sale
consideration and the appellant is only a name lender.
2. The marital relationship between the appellant
and the 1st respondent came to an end through a decree
of divorce. Thereafter the present petition was filed.
In the present petition, a claim for compensation of
`4,00,000/- was also raised. Sri.Harikumar, the 1st
respondent, has transferred the entire share in favour
of the 2nd respondent. According to the appellant, it
Mat.Appeal No.489/2014
was only to defeat her monetary claim. That is why she
sought relief to set aside the sale deed.
3. The Family Court found that an earlier claim
for monetary relief has been dismissed and that there
was no scope for setting aside the deed executed by 1 st
respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent. However,
while making the said exercise, Family Court omitted to
note the claim of the appellant based on Ext.A2 sale
deed. The question that ought to have been considered
by the Family Court was whether item No.1 of plaint
schedule is partible or not?
4. Admittedly, the name of the appellant is
reflected in Ext.A2 sale deed. Whether the appellant is
having right or not was not considered by the Family
Court. In the said circumstances, we are of the view
that for the limited purpose of deciding the issue with
regard to item No.1 of plaint schedule, the matter is
to be remanded back. We frame the following issue for
consideration after remand.
(i) Whether item No.1 of plaint schedule is
partible or not?
5. In regard to other relief sought for by the
appellant, we find that Family Court was justified in
declining the relief as her monetary claim has already
Mat.Appeal No.489/2014
been dismissed vide judgment in OP (HMA) No.520/2009.
Further, the appellant had not made any case to sustain
the claim of compensation. Therefore, we find no reason
to interfere with the other findings. The matter is
therefore remanded back to the Family Court to try the
above issue.
6. Appeal in all other respects is dismissed
except to the extent of remanding the matter for trying
the issue as above.
7. Parties are directed to appear before the
Family Court on 20/5/2021. The Family Court shall
endeavour to dispose of the matter within a further
period of six months.
Both parties are free to adduce fresh evidence in
regard to the above issue.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Rp True Copy JUDGE
PS to Judge
