Kerala High Court
Kavitha vs Raju on 24 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943
OP (FC).No.196 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.A.NO.216/2020 IN E.P.NO.6/2019 IN
O.P.NO.342/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
--------
PETITIONER/S:
KAVITHA, AGED 45 YEARS,
D/O.PRABHAKARAN AND W/O.RAJU,
NEDIYAMBATH HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM P.O.,
KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SRI.K.V.WINSTON
SMT.ANU JACOB
RESPONDENT/S:
RAJU, AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.NELLIPPARAMBIL GOPALAN,
VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 642.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No.196/2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of March 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor.
Challenging the decree, she filed Mat.Appeal
No.374/2018. In the said Mat.Appeal, an interim order
was passed staying the execution of the decree in
O.P.No.342/2015 on the file of the Family Court,
Thrissur on condition that she furnishes security for
the entire decree amount to the satisfaction of the
Family Court.
2. The property of the petitioner is under
attachment. It appears that there was an attachment.
The petitioner furnished security. The security
appears to be a property obtained by the petitioner
based on a partition deed. According to the
petitioner, the original of the deed is with the
other executant of the partition deed. The Family
Court refused to accept the security as the
petitioner failed to produce the original of the
title deed and other revenue records. According to
the petitioner, she is not in possession of the
original deed and she can produce only the certified
copy of the same.
Having considered the submission of the
petitioner, we are of the view that the Family Court
shall consider as to whether the security furnished
by the petitioner is sufficient or not. In view of
the submission that the petitioner is not in
possession of the original document, she shall file
an affidavit to that effect and produce the certified
copy. The petitioner shall also produce all revenue
records relating to the property. The Family Court
is, therefore, directed to consider E.A.No.216/2020
to substitute the property under attachment with the
security to be furnished. The impugned order is,
accordingly, set aside. The matter shall be
reconsidered by the Family Court afresh, in the light
of the directions as above.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ln
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED OCTOBER
27,2017 IN ORIGINAL PETITION NUMBER 163/2015
AND 342/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8 FEBRUARY 2019 IN
I.A.NO.1278/2018 IN M.A.T. APPEAL NO.374/2018
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3 AUGUST 2019 IN
E.A.NO.206/2019 IN E.P.NO.6/2019 IN
O.P.NO.342/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED PARTITION DEED NUMBER
3492/2015 OF THE SRO, AYYANTHOLE.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SHOWING THE
FAIR VALUE FOR THE LAND FIXED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF E.A.NO.216/2020 IN E.P.NO.6/2019
IN O.P.NO.342/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JANUARY 19, 2021
IN E.A.NO.216/2020 IN E.P.NO.6/2019 IN
O.P.NO.342/2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
