Kerala High Court
Renjukumar vs Letha Kumary on 22 October, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA, 1946
OP (FC) NO. 630 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2023 IN EP NO.9 OF 2019 OF
FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS:
1 RENJUKUMAR
AGED 44 YEARS
PALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU , IVERKALA PADINJATTAKKARA ,
NADAVUVILA MURI KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE KUNATHOOR TALUK
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUKUMARI
AMMA AGED 56YEARS PALAVILA ,PUTHENVEEDU
IVERKALA ,PADINJATTAKKARA , NADAVUVILA MUTRI KUNNATHOOR
VILLAGE KUNATHOOR TALUK KOLLAM, PIN - 690540
2 SUKUMARI AMMA
AGED 62 YEARS
PALAVILA,PUTHENVEEDU IVERKALA ,PADINJATTAKKARA ,
NADAVUVILA MUTRI KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KUNATHOOR TALUK
KOLLAM, PIN - 690540
BY ADVS.
M.R.SARIN
S.GREESHMA SHANMUKHAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER:
LETHA KUMARY
AGED 34 YEARS
VADAKKADATHU PUTHEN VEEDU IVERKLA PADINJATTAKKARA NORTH
MURI KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE KOLLAM, PIN - 690540
BY ADVS.
2024:KER:79885
OP (FC) NO. 630 OF 2024
2
K.SIJU
S.ABHILASH(K/001641/1995)
ANJANA KANNATH(K/939/2014)
MARIYA JOSE(K/004011/2023)
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79885
OP (FC) NO. 630 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)
The petitioners challenge Ext.P7 order
of the learned Family Court, Chavara, whereby,
E.A.No.19/2020 in E.P.No.9/2019 in
O.P.No.1514/2013, filed by the respondents
herein, were allowed; thus reviewing Ext.P12
order and directing them to furnish fresh
security.
2. Sri.M.R.Sarin - learned counsel
for the petitioners, submitted that Ext.P7
order is impermissible because, it has reviewed
Ext.P12 order - which was issued as early as in
the year 2019 - even when no application for
condonation of delay had accompanied the
petition for review filed by the respondents.
3. On the merits of the matter,
Sri.M.R.Sarin then submitted that the finding
2024:KER:79885
OP (FC) NO. 630 OF 2024
of the learned Family Court, that the value of
the property offered as security is less than
the decree amount, is not factually correct and
that such has been entered into in a mechanical
fashion, merely relying upon the Fair Value
notification - which is far distant from the
actual market value. He then prayed, as an
alternative request, that his client be given
an opportunity to prove the market value of the
property, so that the learned Trial Court can
then take a final decision.
4. Smt.Anjana Kannath - learned
counsel for the respondent, however, submitted
that Ext.P12 order is an obvious mistake
committed by the learned Trial Court; and that
it, therefore, rectified it, through Ext.P7
order, albeit on her client's application. She
pointed out that, even after noticing that the
2024:KER:79885
OP (FC) NO. 630 OF 2024
Fair Value of the property was only 14792.25
per Are, Ext.P12 order was issued by the
learned Family Court, holding that the market
value is higher than that, but without any such
information being available on record. She
submitted that, therefore, her client is
willing to accede to the second of the
suggestionS of Sri.M.R.Sarin, that the
petitioners be given an opportunity to prove
the market value of the property cogently.
5. Sri.M.R.Sarin - learned counsel
for the petitioners accepted the above.
6. It is thus indubitable that we can
now dispose of this matter on the basis of the
consent of the parties as seen supra. However,
when one examines Ext.P7, it is limpid that the
learned Family Court has rejected the earlier
security furnished by the petitioner, solely
2024:KER:79885
OP (FC) NO. 630 OF 2024
holding that the value of the property is only
Rs.1,06,504.20/-, taking into account the Fair
Value fixed by the Registration Department of
the Government of Kerala. Interestingly, the
same figure was noticed by the learned Court
while it issued Ext.P12; but then it had
entered into a finding, though seemingly
without any substantiating material, that the
actual market value is much higher.
8. As far as the parties are
concerned, in particular, the respondent, the
only interest is that the decree debt is
properly secured. If the market value of the
property is indeed higher than the decreed
debt, there was no requirement for the learned
Trial Court to have issued Ext.P7; but if it is
to the contrary, then we cannot find fault with
it in having done so.
2024:KER:79885
OP (FC) NO. 630 OF 2024
In the afore circumstances, we allow
this Original Petition and set aside Ext.P7;
with a consequential direction to the learned
Family Court, Chavara, to reconsider
E.A.No.19/2020 in E.P.No.9/2019 in
O.P.No.1514/2013, after affording necessary
opportunities to both sides, particularly to
the petitioners, to produce and prove any
document to establish the actual market value
of the property concerned. We record the
undertaking of Sri.M.R.Sarin that his client is
not relying on the argument that E.A.No.19/2020
is incompetent merely because it has been filed
beyond limitation; and we consequently direct
the learned Trial Court to decide it on merits
as per law, adverting to our above directions.
The afore shall be done as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later
2024:KER:79885
OP (FC) NO. 630 OF 2024
than two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
SAS
2024:KER:79885
OP (FC) NO. 630 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 630/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
ExhibitP 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO 1514/13 FILED
RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT
CHAVARA DATED ON 26.9.18
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO
1514/13 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT CHAVARA
DATED ON 26.9.18
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN IANO 2/2019
IN MAT APPEAL NO 148/2019 DATED ON 23.07.2019
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF EP NO 9/2019 IN OPNO
1514/2013 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT CHAVARA
FILED BY RESPONDENT HERE IN
Exhibit P 5 THE TRUE COPY OF FILED EA NO 19/22020 IN EPNO
9/2019 IN OPNO 1514/2013 BEFORE THE FAMILY
COURT CHAVARA DATED 17.02.2020
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE
IN OPNO 1514/2013 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT
CHAVARA ON DATED 17.02.2019
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA NO 19/22020
IN EPNO 9/2019 IN OPNO 1514/2013 IN IA
NO.2/2019 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT CHAVARA
DATED 27.6.2023
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF FAIR VALUE FIXED BY
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA BELONGED TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
DATED ON 13.11.2019
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS IN IN OPNO 1514/2013 BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT CHAVARA
2024:KER:79885
OP (FC) NO. 630 OF 2024
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF CONDITIONAL ATTACHMENT
PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P 11 TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT PETITION FILED BY
THE DECREE HOLDER IN E.P NO. 9/2019 ON
/2019 OP.NO 1514/2013 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT
CHAVARA.
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EP NO. 09/2019
IN OP NO. 1514/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
FAMILY COURT CHAVARA DATED ON 12.12.2019
