Chandrika Devi vs Sreekala Balakrishnan
2025 Latest Caselaw 3282 Ker

Kerala High Court

Chandrika Devi vs Sreekala Balakrishnan on 8 August, 2025

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

                                                  2025:KER:59812
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                     &
            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
   FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
                        MA (EXE.) NO. 8 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2025 IN E.A.1/2025 IN EP NO.15
  OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 29.08.2024 IN OP(MONEY) NO.947 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT,
                                   PALA

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT/2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR/2ND DEFENDANT:
          CHANDRIKA DEVI, AGED 73 YEARS
          W/O.LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, CHENGINATTU HOUSE,
          PERUNNILAM KARA, POONJAR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
          TALUK, POONJAR P.O., PIN - 686581

            BY ADV SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/REVIEW PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER
AND 1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR/PLAINTIFF & 1ST DEFENDANT:
    1     SREEKALA BALAKRISHNAN, W/O.SURESH KUMAR,
          CHENGINATTU HOUSE, PERUNNILAM KARA, POONJAR
          VILLAGE POONJAR P.O FROM KULANJIYIL (MANJADIYIL)
          HOUSE, CHENAPPADY P.O., PIN - 686581

    2       G. SURESHKUMAR, S/O.LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR,
            CHENGINATTU HOUSE, PERUNNILAM KARA, POONJAR
            VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, POONJAR P.O,
            PIN - 686581

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.JESTIN MATHEW
            SMT.KRISHNA PRABHA
            SHRI.JOSHY RAJ R.R.


     THIS     MAT     APPEAL   (EXECUTION)     HAVING     COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION    ON     08.08.2025,   ALONG     WITH   MA   (EXE.)NO.9/2025,
10/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                           2025:KER:59812
MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25
                                      2

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                      &
            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
    FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
                         MA (EXE.) NO. 9 OF 2025
 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2025 IN EA 2/2025 IN EP NO.15
OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA IN OP NO.947 OF 2022 OF FAMILY
                               COURT, KOTTAYAM

APPELLANT/PETITIONER/2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR/2ND DEFENDANT:

             CHANDRIKA DEVI, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.LATE
             GOPINATHAN NAIR, CHENGINATTU HOUSE, PERUNNILAM
             KARA, POONJAR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
             POONJAR P.O., PIN - 686581

             BY ADV SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF:

             SREEKALA BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS
             W/O.SURESH KUMAR, CHENGINATTU HOUSE,
             PERUNNILAM KARA, POONJAR VILLAGE, POONJAR P.O.,
             FROM KULANJIYIL (MANJADIYIL) HOUSE, CHENAPPADY
             P.O., PIN - 686581

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.JESTIN MATHEW
             SMT.KRISHNA PRABHA
             SHRI.JOSHY RAJ R.R.


      THIS     MAT    APPEAL     (EXECUTION)     HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.08.2025, ALONG WITH MA (EXE.)NO.8/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                        2025:KER:59812
MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25
                                     3

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                     &
            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
    FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
                        MA (EXE.) NO. 10 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2025 IN E.A.4/2025 EP NO.15 OF
  2024 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA IN OP(MONEY) NO.947 OF 2022 OF
                             FAMILY COURT, PALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER/2ND JD/2ND DEFENDANT:
          CHANDRIKA DEVI, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.LATE
          GOPINATHAN NAIR, CHENGINATTU HOUSE, PERUNNILAM
          KARA, POONJAR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
          POONJAR P.O, PIN - 686581

             BY ADV SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF:
          SREEKALA BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS
          W/O.SURESH KUMAR, CHENGINATTU HOUSE,
          PERUNNILAM KARA, POONJAR VILLAGE,
          POONJAR P.O., PIN FROM KULANJIYIL
          (MANJADIYIL) HOUSE, CHENAPPADY P.O,
          PIN - 686581

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.JESTIN MATHEW
             SMT.KRISHNA PRABHA
             SHRI.JOSHY RAJ R.R.


      THIS     MAT    APPEAL    (EXECUTION)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.08.2025, ALONG WITH MA (EXE.)NO.8/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                                2025:KER:59812
MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25
                                        4

                               JUDGMENT

[MA (EXE.) Nos.8/2025, 9/2025, 10/2025]

Devan Ramachandran, J.

These Appeals arise out of an order of the learned Family

Court, Pala, which disposed of three applications, namely

E.A.Nos.1/2025, 2/2025 and 4/2025 in E.P.No.15/2024 in O.P.

(Money) No.947/2022.

2. The essential facts, shorn off all unnecessary details, is

that the appellant is the second judgment debtor in the decree

passed by the learned Family Court in the aforementioned Original

Petition; and her property was attached in execution by the 1 st

respondent-Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan. The appellant says that she,

thereupon, deposited the entire amount under the decree before

Court; but that, in spite of this, Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan refused

to vacate from her house and that this has now given rise to the

fresh set of controversy.

3. Sri.K.P.Sreekumar - learned counsel for the appellant,

pointed out that his client had made the deposit before the 2025:KER:59812 MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25

learned Family Court in full satisfaction of the decree, in terms of

its order dated 28.12.2024; but that, in spite of this, Smt.Sreekala

Balakrishnan is refusing to vacate from her house, thus forcing her

to live somewhere else. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned

orders be set aside because, the combined effect of the same is

that even though his client deposited the entire amount, she has

been denied vacant possession of her house; while her request for

a direction to Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan to do so has been denied.

4. In response, Sri.Jestin Mathew - learned counsel for

Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan, explained that the Original Petition was

filed by his client seeking return of her gold, which has been

decreed; and that she thereupon levied execution by filing

E.P.No.15/2024. He affirmed that his client had attached the

property of the appellant in such proceedings, but that the learned

Family Court, thereafter, allowed her to deposit the entire amount

through its order dated 28.12.2024. He conceded that his client,

therefore, filed E.A.No.1/2025 to modify the said order since she 2025:KER:59812 MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25

was under the wrong impression that the word 'vacating' in the

said order meant that she has to vacate her house, but that the

learned Family Court has now found that its purport was not so

and therefore, dismissed her application.

5. Sri.Jestin Mathew then pointed out that, the appellant

subsequently filed E.A.No.2/2025, seeking a direction that his

client be evicted from the house in question; accompanied by

E.A.No.4/2025, seeking a direction that the amount deposited by

her be not disbursed to his client until she does so. He submitted

that both these applications are beyond the purview of the

Original Petition, the decree or the Execution Petition and hence

that the learned Family Court acted without error in dismissing

them.

6. The endorsement on files show that service to the 2 nd

respondent has been complete. However, he is neither present in

person nor is he represented through counsel. We are, therefore,

constrained to dispose of these Appeals in his absence.

2025:KER:59812 MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25

7. We have tested the afore rival submissions on the

touchstone of the various materials and orders on record.

8. Most of the facts in these cases are admitted and hence,

would not require us to speak about them in detail.

9. The fact that the learned Family Court had passed an

order on 28.12.2024 in the following manner is admitted:

It is informed that 2nd judgment Debtor is ready to deposit the entire arrear. For vacating the present stay of the decree holder over the 2nd judgment Debtor's property, call on 25.01.2025.

10. It is without contest that the appellant, thereupon,

deposited the entire amount; but as correctly argued by both sides,

the controversy then erupted.

11. Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan filed E.A.No.1/2025, to

review the afore extracted order under the impression that she has

been directed to vacate from the building; while the appellant filed

E.A.No.2/2025 seeking such a direction, accompanied by

E.A.No.4/2025 praying that the amount deposited by her be not 2025:KER:59812 MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25

disbursed to the former, until she does so. The learned Family

Court has dismissed all these applications through the impugned

order.

12. When one examines the impugned order, it is

indubitable that the learned Family Court has held, through its

earlier order extracted above, that Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan had

not been directed to vacate from the house in question and hence

dismissed E.A.No.1/2025; and then dealt with E.A.No.2/2025, to

find that there cannot be a direction against Smt.Sreekala

Balakrishnan to evict herself from the property because it is

beyond the ambit of the decree. It consequently, dismissed

E.A.No.4/2025, thus paving way for the deposited amount to be

received by Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan.

13. We certainly cannot find any error in the orders of the

learned Family Court because, even an ex facie examination of the

afore extracted order would discern that the learned Family Court

never directed Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan to evict herself from the 2025:KER:59812 MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25

house in question.

14. That said, when it comes to the applications filed by

the appellant, namely E.A.Nos.2/2025 and 4/2025, they are

edificed on an assertion that the amount due to Smt.Sreekala

Balakrishnan can be received by her only on the condition that

she vacates herself from the house in question. We are afraid that

this also cannot be countenanced because, it is again without

contest that Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan has obtained a Residential

Order in M.C.(DV)9/2021 in her favour. We are told that this case

has now been finally allowed.

15. It may be true, as argued by Sri.K.P.Sreekumar, that

the appellant is not a party to the afore case, but as long as that

order remains, it would not have behooved the learned Execution

Court to have intervened and directed Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan

to evict herself. The appellant may obtain remedies against such

orders, even if she is not a party into the proceedings; and we see

no reason why she did not invoke it.

2025:KER:59812 MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25

16. In such background, if we are to allow E.A.No.2/2025,

then it would have the effect of a direction to Smt.Sreekala

Balakrishnan to evict herself from the house, notwithstanding the

benefit of the order she is enjoying in MC(DV)9/2021. Obviously,

the learned Trial Court also could not have done so; and we

consequently approve its order, declining such a direction.

17. Coming to the findings of the learned Family Court in

E.A.No.4/2025, it was for the appellant to deposit the money, so

that the decree could have been discharged; and she voluntarily

has done so. Once that was done, the attachment over the

property gets vacated and she would be in a position to deal with

it in any manner she wants because, it is without contest before

us that she is its exclusive owner. However, she will have to

accede to the pending directions in M.C.(DV)9/2021, unless it is

vacated, modified or set aside as per law.

In the afore circumstances, these Appeals are dismissed; but

taking into account the peculiar circumstances involved, we make 2025:KER:59812 MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25

no order as to costs.

We nevertheless clarify that any remedy available to the

appellant, to seek the relief of eviction of the property by

Smt.Sreekala Balakrishnan through methods legally and statutorily

available to her, have not been spoken to, being left open.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE RR 2025:KER:59812 MA(Exe) 8/25, 9/25 & 10/25

APPENDIX OF MA (EXE.) 8/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE E.P.NO.15 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL FAMILY COURT PALA Annexure A2 ORIGINAL OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE DEPOSIT ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT, PALA DATED 27.01.2025 FOR RS.5,31,000/-

Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE EXECUTION COURT DATED 02.06.2025 CLOSING THE EP ON SATISFACTION OF THE DECREE Annexure A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 05.01.2025 OF JUDICIAL FAMILY COURT PALA Annexure A5 THE APPELLANT HEREIN FILED E.A.NO.2 OF 2025 PRAYING FOR A DIRECTION TO THE LST RESPOND-ENT TO VACATE FFOM THE HOUSE SITUATED IN THE ATTACHED PROPERTY.

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE E.A.NO.2 OF 2025 Annexure A6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE E.A.NO.4/2025 OF JUDICIAL FAMILY COURT PALA Annexure A7 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE M.C.(DV) NO.21 OF 2025 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ERATTUPETTA