Kerala High Court
Mohandas vs Pankajavally on 1 November, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
Mat.Appeal No.1214 of 2017 1
2024:KER:81288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1214 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2017 IN OP NO.13 OF 2016
OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MOHANDAS, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,
POOKATTU HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA DESOM,
KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680571.
BY ADV SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
PANKAJAVALLY, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.MOHANDAS,
C/O SONY, W/O JYOTHIKUMAR, ENGOOR HOUSE,
PANAMUKKU, KANIMANGALAM, NESUPUZHA.P.O,
THRISSUR-680007.
BY ADV SMT.M.CHANDRALEKHA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.1214 of 2017 2
2024:KER:81288
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant calls into question the correctness of the
judgment and decree of the learned Family Court, Thrissur, in
O.P.No.13 of 2016.
2. The aforementioned Original Petition was filed by the
appellant herein, seeking that Ext.B1 document be set aside and
that the respondent - his wife, be injuncted from selling the
property covered by the said Deed, to anyone else.
3. The learned Family Court took the matter to trial and
the appellant was examined as PW1, while the respondent as
RW1 and two documents, namely Exts.B1 & B2, were marked on
the side of the respondent. After evaluating the evidence on
record, the learned Family Court dismissed the Original Petition,
holding that the petition schedule property, namely that which is
covered by Ext.B1, belongs exclusively to the respondent; and,
therefore, that no order of injunction can be issued against her,
as sought for.
2024:KER:81288
4. Sri.Rajit - learned Counsel for the appellant, argued
that his client's specific case is that Ext.B1 document was
executed by his mother in favour of the respondent, solely
because the latter was her daughter-in-law and without any
consideration; and hence that it is liable to be set aside, and
consequently that the respondent must be liable to be injuncted
from selling it to anyone else. He argued that, when the
respondent had paid no sale consideration to his client's mother,
the edifice of Ext.B1 is lost; and consequently that it is liable to
be declared as being null and void by this Court.
5. However, in refutation, Smt.M.Chandralekha -
learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Original
Petition is not maintainable for more than one reason, namely,
for the first; the document is in the name of the respondent and
it is clearly indicated therein that ₹500/- had been paid as sale
consideration; and, for the second, that the Original Petition
was, in fact, hit by the rigour of limitation because, the Deed
was executed in the year 1989, while the O.P was filed only in
2024:KER:81288
the year 2016. She argued that the learned Family Court had
assessed the evidence and materials on record incisively and
has entered into a correct conclusion; and, therefore, that this
Appeal is only deserving of being dismissed.
6. We have examined the testimony of the parties as
PW1 and RW1 and have also evaluated Exts.B1 and B2.
7. The specific deposition of PW1 - the appellant
herein, is that his mother had executed Ext.B1 in favour of the
respondent, solely for the reason that she is his wife and for no
other reason, and that no sale consideration had ever changed.
His assertion, therefore, is that it ought to be assumed that the
property belongs to his mother and that after her death, he is
her sole heir; and resultantly, that the respondent must be
injuncted from dealing with the property.
8. We see that the learned Family Court had evaluated
the evidence on record, to hold that the parties are still husband
and wife and that there is no other litigation pending between
them, except an Original Petition filed by the husband, seeking
2024:KER:81288
restitution of conjugal rights, which had been allowed. If this be
so, we fail to understand how the appellant could have filed the
present Original Petition because, his specific case is that his
mother had executed Ext.B1 in favour of his wife, because she
was her daughter-in-law; and interestingly, that status
continues even today, when the parties are ad idem that they
have not sought for a divorce or obtained such.
9. That apart, when we examine Ext.B1, it is limpid that
it is a Sale Deed, in which the sale consideration has been fixed
as ₹500/- and recorded therein that this has been paid by the
respondent to the vendor - namely her mother-in-law. When
these averments in the document remains unimpeached, one
fails to understand how the appellant tries to seek a declaration
in the manner he has sought, by a bald assertion that no sale
consideration had passed. Further, Ext.B2 is a Tax Receipt,
which indubitably establishes that the property has been
transferred and registered in favour of the respondent; and for
this reason also, it is ineluctable that the document had worked
2024:KER:81288
itself out, with the respondent having become its owner
exclusively.
10. Pertinently, the appellant does not have even a
whispering case that ₹500/-, shown as a sale consideration in
Ext.B1, was paid by him, or that his wife did not pay that sum.
His case is one of complete denial, asserting that there was no
sale consideration in the document, but this is completely belied
by its own contents; and the law is now well-settled, that oral
evidence cannot override the contents of a document, except in
the manner as is statutorily prescribed.
11. When we conclude as afore, we will be fully justified
in dismissing this Appeal; but we must also advert to the factum
of the learned Family Court having gone one step forward, to
find that the appellant did not seek appointment of a
Commissioner, to identify the property and to establish his case
that he had constructed a firewood shed in it. When such
assertions are also without any evidence and which remains
unproved, obviously, we cannot find fault with the learned
2024:KER:81288
Family Court in having concluded, as it has done in the
impugned judgment.
12. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to
intervene with the judgment impugned; and on the contrary, we
are of the opinion that the conclusions therein have been
entered into as per law and based on the evidence on record.
This Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but without
making any order as to costs.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
sp/04/11/2024
