Kerala High Court
Dr. N. Vijayan vs Mamitha on 21 December, 2023
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH
AGRAHAYANA, 1945
MAT.APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2021 IN OP 140/2012 OF THE
FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 & 4:
1 DR. N VIJAYAN (DECEASED)*
AGED 92 YEARS
PRASANNA', INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOTTOOLY,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016.
2 RANI VENUGOPAL (LR OF 1ST APPELLANT)*
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O. DR. T.R. VENUGOPAL, 'THANDASSERY HOUSE',
CHERUMUKKU, CHEMBUKAVVU, THRISSUR-680022. NOW
RESIDING AT:- 9A4, HEERA VASTU HILLS, AAKULAM,
SREEKARIYAM P.O., APPELLANTS/
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017.
BY SRI S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR )
ADV P.B.KRISHNAN
ADV TERRY V.JAMES
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MAMITHA
AGED 43 YEARS
KUNNANTH AVEN VEETTIL, GANDHINAGAR, WEST NADA,
GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680506.
2
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
2 RAJESH VIJAYAN (LR OF 1ST APPELLANT)*
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. DR. N. VIJAYAN, 'PRASANNA' INDIRA GANDHI
ROAD, KOTTOOLY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016.
3 ROY VIJAYAN (LR OF 1ST APPELLANT)*
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. DR. N. VIJAYAN, 'PRASANNA' INDIRA GANDHI
ROAD, KOTTOOLY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY N.U.HARIKRISHNA
R3 BY JAGAN ABRAHAM M GEORGW
R3 BY JAISON ANTONY
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 01.12.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.256/2022,
THE COURT ON 21.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH
AGRAHAYANA, 1945
MAT.APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2021 IN OP 2211/2012 OF THE
FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5:
1 DR. N. VIJAYAN (DECEASED)*
AGED 92 YEARS
'PRASANNA', INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOTTOOLY,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016.
2 RANI VENUGOPAL (LR OF 1ST APPELLANT)*
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O. DR. T.R. VENUGOPAL, 'THANDASSERY HOUSE',
CHERUMUKKU, CHEMBUKAVVU, THRISSUR-680022. NOW
RESIDING AT:- 9A4, HEERA VASTU HILLS,
AAKULAM,SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695017.
3 VIVEK VENUGOPAL
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. DR. T.R. VENUGOPAL 'THANDASSERY HOUSE',
CHERUMUKKU, CHEMBUKAVVU, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680022.
BY SRI S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR )
ADV P.B.KRISHNAN
ADV TERRY V.JAMES
4
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 MAMITHA
AGED 43 YEARS
KUNNANTH AVEN VEETTIL, GANDHINAGAR, WEST NADA,
GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680506.
2 RAJESH VIJAYAN (LR OF 1ST APPELLANT)*
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. DR. N. VIJAYAN, 'PRASANNA' INDIRA GANDHI
ROAD, KOTTOOLY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016.
3 ROY VIJAYAN (LR OF 1ST APPELLANT)*
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. DR. N. VIJAYAN, 'PRASANNA' INDIRA GANDHI
ROAD, KOTTOOLY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016.
*IT IS RECORDED THAT THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE
DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT ARE ALEADY IN THE PARTY
ARRAY AS 2ND APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3
AS PER ORDER DATED 17.10.2022 IN M.A.NO.256 OF
2022 AND M.A.254 OF 2022.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY N.U.HARIKRISHNA
R3 BY JAGAN ABRAHAM M GEORGW
R3 BY JAISON ANTONY
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 01.12.2023, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.254/2022,
THE COURT ON 21.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
JUDGMENT
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
The common order dated 23.12.2021 of the Family
Court, Thrissur is under challenge in these appeals filed under
Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. As per that
common order O.P.Nos.140 of 2012 and 2211 of 2012 were
decreed. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in O.P.No.140 of 2012 and
respondent Nos.3 to 5 in O.P.No.2211 of 2012 filed the
respective appeals.
2. These appeals were admitted on 29.03.2022. As
per the order in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in the respective appeals,
operation of the impugned decrees was stayed subject to
furnishing security.
3. The 1st appellant in these appeals expired on
17.09.2022. The memos filed by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the legal representatives of the deceased 1 st
appellant are already in the party array were recorded.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the 1st respondent. Other respondents did not turn up.
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
5. O.P.No.140 of 2012 was filed by the 1st respondent
wife claiming return of 332 sovereigns of gold ornaments or
its value and realisation of Rs.10,00,000/- that was paid as
patrimony. Rs.54.5 lakhs, which was allegedly paid to the
respondents in the O.P. at various occasions and
Rs.6,03,205/- towards the value of the car given to the
husband at the time of marriage also were sought to be
recovered. O.P.No.2211 of 2012 was filed by the 1st
respondent seeking to declare Ext.P1 sale seed a sham one
and to set aside it.
6. Wife (since divorced) has filed both the O.Ps.
Respondents No. 1 to 4 are common in both O.Ps. The
petitioner was married to the 1 st respondent on 21.11.1999.
The 2nd respondent is the brother, 3rd respondent is the father
and 4th respondent is the sister of the 1 st respondent. The 5th
respondent in O.P.No.2211 of 2012 is the son of the 4 th
respondent. The parties are referred to hereafter as per their
aforementioned ranks.
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
7. Initially both these O.Ps. were decreed by the
Family Court and all the respondents were exparte at that
time. Present appellants approached this Court challenging
the said exparte decrees by filing O.P.(FC) Nos.64 of 2017 and
87 of 2017. Those Original Petitions were allowed by this
Court and the decrees as against the present appellants alone
were set aside. The matter was remitted for a fresh trial. By
those judgments, the decree as against respondent Nos.1 and
2, who are the husband and his brother became final.
8. Contentions of the petitioner in O.P.No.140 of 2012
are: At the time of marriage she was given 350 sovereigns of
gold ornaments, Rs.10 lakhs and a Hundai Accent Car. On
subsequent occasions, the petitioner and her father and brother
had to make several payments on the demand and request of
the respondents. Respondents No.1 to 4 were the partners of
M/s Vijaya Realtors, which was involved in construction
business. In order to meet various business requirements of the
said firm, the 1st respondent as also the other respondents
demanded money on various occasions and the petitoner, her
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
father and brother had to pay various amounts totalling
Rs,54,50,000/.- to them. Out of 350 sovereigns, 18 sovereigns
of gold ornaments were retained by the petitioner for her day to
day use. Remaining 332 sovereigns of gold ornaments were
kept in the locker in the name of the petitioner and the 1 st
respondent. The 1st respondent pledged the said gold ornaments
with financial institutions and the whole of the money received
thereby was invested in the partnership business. The car was
sold and sale proceeds was also invested in that business. The
entire amount thus received from the petitioner, and her father
and brother was utilised for the purpose of the partnership firm.
Relationship between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent
strained and that resulted in filing O.P.Nos.140 and 141 of 2012.
O.P.No.141 of 2012 was filed seeking divorce and the decree
thereon has become final. In O.P.No.140 of 2012 immovable
property in the name of the 3rd respondent was attached. When
the 5th respondent filed a claim petition contending that he had
purchased that property and it was not liable to be attached, the
petitioner realised that such a fraudulent document was
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
executed in favour of the 5th respondent. Ext.B1, sale deed
No.3333 of 2009 of SRO, Chevayoor was executed in favour of
the 5th respondent only to avoid the petitioner proceeding
against the said property for realisation of amounts due to her.
In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed O.P.No.2211 of
9. After the remand, respondents No. 3 and 4 filed a
detailed counter statement in O.P.No.140 of 2012. Respondent
Nos.3 to 5 in O.P.No.2211 of 2012 also filed a counter
statement. Their contentions are that they were not parties in
receiving the gold ornaments, car or money from the
petitioner, his father or brother. The 3 rd respondent is not a
partner of M/s Vjaya Realtors. The 4 th respondent was only a
silent partner and never had she involved in the business of
that partnership firm. They did not know whether gold
ornaments were taken away or misappropriated by the 1 st
respondent. Similarly, they have no knowledge about receipt
of any money by the 1st respondent. Thus, they denied liability
in respect of the claims set forth by the petitioner.
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
10. As regards Ext.B1, the 5th respondent contended
that he had purchased the said property by making payment
of valid consideration of Rs.25 lakhs. The contention of the 3 rd
respondent was that on various occasions, he had received
money from the 5th respondent totalling Rs.67 lakhs and in set
off of Rs.25 lakhs from that amount, he had executed Ext.B1
in favour of the 5 th respondent. He also contended that
O.P.No.2211 of 2012 is not maintainable since the Family
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a petition.
11. At the trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1
to A34 were marked on the side of the petitioner. RWs1 to 3
were examined and Ext.B1 to B13 were marked on the side of
the respondents. Ext.X1 series were also marked through
RW1, the Manager of the Punjab National Bank. The Family
Court after considering the entire evidence and hearing both
sides, held respondents No.3 and 4 to be the partners of M/s
Vijaya Realtors. The Family Court further held that the
petitioner succeeded in proving misappropriation of 332
sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.10 lakhs paid as patrimony,
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
the sale price of the car and also Rs.54.5 lakhs for the
business purposes of M/s Vijaya Realtors. Accordingly, O.P.
No.140 of 2012 was decreed against respondents Nos.1 to 4.
12. The learned counsel appearing for respondents No.
3 to 5 would submit that there was total lack of evidence to
hold the deceased 3rd respondent and the 4th respondent
liable for the alleged misappropriation of gold ornaments, car
and money. It is submitted that the 1 st respondent might have
received the gold ornaments, car and money and used for the
business of M/s Vijaya Realtors, but respondents No. 3 and 4
could not be held liable for that, and they have no role in the
firm business. It was contended that the 3 rd respondent was
not a partner, and the 4th respondent was only a sleeping
partner having no role in the business. The 4 th respondent
claimed that she has been residing along with her husband,
who is a reputed businessman and she did not want to involve
in any such business.
13. The decree in O.P.No.140 of 2012 as against
respondents Nos.1 and 2 has become final and there cannot
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
be any challenge to that part of the decree in O.P.No.140 of
2012. Therefore, the challenge confines to the legality and
correctness of the decree in O.P.No.140 of 2012 as against
respondents Nos.3 and 4 and the decree in O.P.No.2211 of
2012 as against respondent No.5. The specific plea of the
petitioner to fasten respondents Nos.3 and 4 with liability is
that they were also partners of M/s Vijaya Realtors. It is her
contention that the whole money given by the petitioner, her
father and brother, including the patrimony and the money
received by pledging her 332 sovereigns of gold ornaments
and sale of her car were invested in the firm business. If,
respondents No. 3 and 4 are responsible as partners,
particularly, respondent No. 3, question concerning validity of
Ext.B1 sale deed in favour of respondent No.5 does crop up
for consideration. In the said circumstances, the first question
needs resolution is whether respondents No. 3 and 4 were
partners of M/s Vijaya Realtors.
14. Deceased 3rd respondent denied having any role in
the business of M/s Vijaya Realtors. While it was contended
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
that the 3rd respondent was not a partner, the 4 th respondent
claimed that she was only a sleeping partner, having no role in
the business of the partnership firm. The petitioner relied on
not only the oral evidence, but documents such as Exts.A16
and A18 also to prove the role of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in
the partnership business. Ext.A16 is an e-mail communication
where it has been stated that respondent No.3 was the head
of M/s Vijaya Realtors. Ext.A18 is a copy of the review petition
filed by the 2nd respondent before the Family Court,
Ernakulam. The recital in it shows that respondent Nos.3 and
4 were also partners of the firm. When the learned counsel for
the petitioner relying on the said evidence submits that
respondent Nos.3 and 4 are partners of M/s Vijaya Realtors,
the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (appellants)
would urge that those items of evidence are inadmissible and
insufficient to prove that fact. Further, the learned counsel for
the appellants by placing reliance on a certified copy of the
Register of Firms relating to M/s Vijaya Realtors would submit
that respondent No.3 was never a partner of the said firm.
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
15. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed IA No.2 of 2023
under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code producing therewith a
certified copy of the Register of Firms. It is the copy of the
Register of Firms issued by the Registrar of Firms, Kerala. It is
averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the
trial court unnecessarily cast burden on respondent Nos.3 and
4 to prove that the 3rd respondent is not a partner of the firm
and that necessitated in producing the said document. It is a
certified copy of a public document. No tenable contention to
refuse permission to receive the said documents in evidence
has been raised by the petitioner in the original petitions.
Since the document as well as its contents are admissible
without formal proof, it is received in evidence and marked as
Ext.B14.
16. The petitioner has no case that the partnership firm
was ever reconstituted. It is evident from Ext.B14 that as per
the statement dated 28.07.1997 submitted before the
Registrar of Firms there were four partners to M/s Vijaya
Realtors and the deceased 3rd respondent was not a partner.
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
The 4th respondent is, however, a partner. As against the said
document, the evidence available on the side of the petitioner
to prove that the 3rd respondent was also a partner is the oral
testimony of PW1 and Exts.A16 and A18. Ext.A16 is an e-mail
communication wherein it has been stated that respondent
No.3 was the head of M/s Vijaya Realtors. Ext.A18 is a copy of
the review petition filed by the 2 nd respondent before the
Family Court, Ernakulam. The contents of Ext.A16 e-mail
communication, which is not sent by the 3rd respondent,
cannot bind him and cannot be used to prove that he was a
partner. Similarly, the Review Petition was filed by the 2 nd
respondent and any assertion to the effect that the 3 rd
respondent was also a partner of the said firm cannot be an
admission by the 3rd respondent. Of course, there could have
some force to that assertion if no other evidence regarding
that fact has come forth. Insofar as the fact as to who are the
partners of a registered firm, the authentic document is the
Register of the Firms. When Ext.B14 shows that the 3 rd
respondent was not a partner, the oral evidence of PW1 or
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
Exts.A16 and A18 would not help the petitioner to prove that
the 3rd respondent was a partner of M/s Vijaya Realtors.
Therefore, the finding of the court below that the 3 rd
respondent was also a partner of the said firm is incorrect and
liable to be reversed.
17. The 4th respondent is a partner as per Ext.B14.
While deposing before the court as RW2, the 4 th respondent
admitted that fact. Her explanation is that she was a
sleeping partner only and therefore she is not answerable to
the liabilities of the firm. A partnership firm is a compendium
of persons and the liability of its partners is co-extensive. As
per Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, every
partner is liable jointly and also severally for all the acts of
the firm while he is a partner. The ipse dixit of RW2 that she
was only a sleeping partner and has no responsibility to the
acts of the firm cannot be accepted in the light of the said
statutory provisions and Ext.B14. Therefore, the 4th
respondent has the responsibility to answer the liabilities of
the firm.
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
18. PW1 is the petitioner. PW2 is her father and PW3 is
her brother. They have deposed in detail regarding handing
over of gold ornaments, car and money at various occasions.
In order to prove one instance of payment of money, PW4 was
examined. The contention of the petitioner is that her father
had to pay an amount of Rs.18 lakhs to PW4 in repayment of
such an amount advanced by him to the 1 st respondent.
Ext.A6 is the agreement entered into between PW2 with PW4
in that regard. PW4 deposed in court about that fact
convincingly also. Apart from the oral testimony of these
witnesses, the petitioner had produced several documents in
order to establish that money was paid to the respondents on
several occasions totalling Rs.54,50,000/-. One such instance
of payment was from one Sri.Manikandan. Money was
received from him on the assurance that an apartment in the
complex proposed to be constructed by M/s Vijaya Realtors
would be allocated to him. Ext.A7(a) and A7(b) are the
receipts for the repayment at the petitioner's instance to
Sri.Manikantan when that contract fell through. After
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
deliberating upon all such evidence in detail, the Family Court
came to the conclusion that payment of Rs.54,50,000/- to the
1st respondent or the firm by either the petitioner or PWs.2
and 3, at her instance, has been sufficiently proved. Having
gone through the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 4 and the
relevant documents, we do not find any reason to depart from
the said finding.
19. The oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3, Ext.A2 series
photographs of the marriage between the petitioner and the
1st respondent and Ext.A3 series, the receipts showing the
purchase of gold ornaments, were relied on by the Family
Court to find that 350 sovereigns of gold ornaments was given
to the petitioner at the time of marriage. RW2, the 4 th
respondent admitted during cross-examination that Ext.A2
series were the photographs during the marriage. She also
admitted that all the gold ornaments seen adorned by the
bride were there at the time of her reaching the matrimonial
home. The document issued from M/s Muthoot Finance,
Ext.A3 shows that 330 sovereigns of gold ornaments were
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
pledged by the 1st respondent. RW1 deposed before the court
that the locker in the name of the petitioner and the 1 st
respondent was last opened by the 1st respondent. In the light
of the said evidence, the Family Court found the contention of
the petitioner that 332 sovereigns of gold ornaments was
appropriated by the 1st respondent to be true. We find no
reason to interfere with that finding for, it is supported by
sufficient evidence.
20. As stated, the plea of the petitioner that besides
the 1st respondent-husband, other respondents are liable for
return of the money so paid or appropriated by pledging gold
and sale of her car stems from the contention that all such
money was spent for the firm business. It is not the
contention of the petitioner that other respondents
appropriated such money from her husband as her relatives
and trustees. The question emerges therefore is whether such
amounts were utilised for the business of the firm.
21. Respondent No.1, is the person at the instance of
whom all such money was received or appropriated. He did
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
not come forward to deny that all of such money was invested
in the firm. While PWs.1 to 3 categorically deposed that whole
of such money was used or invested for the business of the
firm M/s Vijaya Realtors, the contrary evidence is the oral
testimony of RW2. She is proved to be a partner of the firm,
but she claimed that she had no role in the business of the
firm. Her evidence cannot, therefore, be used to disbelieve
the evidence tendered by the petitioner. The 1 st respondent,
the person having direct knowledge regarding the source of
fund or nature of expenditure incurred by the said firm did not
deny such assertions by the petitioner. Therefore, the view
taken by the court below which was after considering and
appreciating the entire evidence on record cannot be said to
be incorrect. It follows that the petitioner is entitled to realise
the amounts received from her or at her instance and also
realised by pledging of gold and sale of the car, not only from
the 1st respondent, but also from the firm, M/s Vijaya
Realtors. The challenge of respondent No.4 to the decree
allowing the petitioner to realise the decree amount from the
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
assets of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 cannot be interfered
with. Respondent No.3 not being a partner of the firm, he or
his assets are not answerable to such claims.
22. The above takes us to the question whether Ext.B1
is liable to be set aside on the plea of the petitioner. The basis
for the plea that Ext.B1 is a sham document and liable to be
set aside is that the 3rd respondent executed it in order to
defraud and defeat her claim against the 3rd respondent as a
partner of the firm. The 3rd respondent was proved to be not a
partner of the firm, M/s Vijaya Realtors. So, it is not available
for the petitioner to contend that alienation effected by him
falls within the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882.
23. The contention of respondents 3 to 5 that the
Family Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain
O.P.No.2211 of 2012 was rejected by the court below holding
that Ext.B1 was executed with a view to defeat the claim of
the petitioner which arose from matrimonial relationship
between herself and the 1st respondent. The Family Court took
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
the view that the said dispute was one coming within the
purview of Explanation (c) to Section 7 of the Family Courts
Act. It is the definite contention of the petitioner that the
disharmony cropped up in the marital relationship between
the petitioner and the 1st respondent in 2008. PW1 deposed
that she left the matrimonial home on 01.07.2008. Ext.B1
was executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 5th
respondent on 05.11.2009. Pointing out that Ext.B1 was
executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of his grandson
much after the matrimonial discord between the petitioner
and the 1st respondent, and the consideration for the sale was
totally inadequate, held Ext. B1 to be a sham one. We found
above that the 3rd respondent was not a partner of the firm.
So, the document executed by him cannot be called in
question by the petitioner. Although the view taken by the
Family Court regarding maintainability O.P.No.2211 of 2012 is
legally correct, such a dispute does not germinate in this case.
The decree of the Family Court in O.P.No.2211 of 2012 is
therefore liable to be set aside.
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
24. In the result,-
1) Mat.Appeal No.254 of 2022 is allowed in part as
follows:-
i) the decree in O.P.Nos.140 of 2012 as against
respondents No. 1,2 and 4 is confirmed; and
ii) the decree in O.P.No.140 of 2012 as against
respondent No.3 is set aside;
2) Mat.Appeal No.256 of 2022 is allowed and the
decree in O.P.No. 2211 of 2012 is set aside.
3) Parties have to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
Mat.Appeal Nos.254 & 256 of 2022
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 254/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A ORIGINAL OF THE TRUE EXTRACT OF FIRM
NO. 2424/1997 OF VIJAYA REALTORS
ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF PARTNERSHIP
FIRMS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
