[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vasanthy vs Sunil Kumar on 29 January, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2026:KER:6988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2016 IN OP NO.936 OF
2008 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/S:
1 VASANTHY
AGED 71 YEARS
W/O.N.BHASKARAN NADAR,AGED 71 YEARS, PANANINNANARAYANA
NILAYAM,PANAVILA, MULLOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA.
2 N.BHASKARAN NADAR ( EXPIRED) * MEMO RECORDED
S/O. LATE NARAYANAN NADAR,AGED 82 YEARS, RESIDING AT
-DO- * * MEMO RECORDED. IT IS RECORDED THAT THE
2ND APPELLANT IS NO MORE AND THE APPELLANTS 1 AND 3 ARE
THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED A2 AS PER ORDER DATED
22.01.2026 ON MEMO DATED 21.01.2026 IN MAT APPEAL
1288/2016
3 B.V.SUNIL KUMAR
S/O. N.BHASKARAN NADAR,AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO-
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.B.PRADEEP
SMT.K.P.SANTHI
SMT.J.HARIPRIYA
2026:KER:6988
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUNIL KUMAR
S/O.SUKUMARAN NADAR,AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANJU
NIVAS,KANNARAVILA, NELLIMOODU P.O.,VENPATA
DESOM,ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA.
2 AJAY T.K.
S/O.KUNJURAMAN NADAR,AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT
T.K.NIVAS,KAZHUVOOR P.O.,ASANVILA, KAZHUVOOR
DESAM,KANJIRAMKULAM,NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.M.MADHU
SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
SMT.C.S.RAJANI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6988
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal No.1288 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition seeking to set aside Exts.A1 and
A2 Sale Deeds, to declare the petitioners' title over the A
schedule property and for recovery of gold ornaments, was
dismissed by the Family Court. The petitioners are in the
appeal.
2. The petitioners in the original petition are the
parents of one late Bindu, who was married to the 1 st
respondent. The marriage was on 05.11.1990. Bindu committed
suicide on 26.01.1997. In connection with the marriage, in
respect of the A schedule property, Ext.A1 Sale Deed was
executed by the parents of Bindu in favour of the 1 st
respondent. The conveyance was intended for the benefit of
2026:KER:6988
their daughter, Bindu. The 1st respondent, on 25.04.2008,
conveyed the property under Ext.A2 Sale Deed in favour of
the 2nd respondent. It is alleged that, during the
subsistence of the marriage with Bindu, the 1 st respondent
contracted the second marriage, leading to the suicide of
Bindu. The property belonged to Bindu and is to revert to
the petitioners, it is contended.
3. It is also claimed that, at the time of marriage,
the gold ornaments described in the petition B schedule were
given to Bindu by the petitioners, and that the same has
been misappropriated by the 1st respondent. It is on the said
allegation that the original petition is filed seeking to
set aside Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 Sale Deeds and for declaring the
petitioners title over the property, and also for return of
the gold ornaments.
4. The defendants through separate written statements
denied the allegations.
2026:KER:6988
5. The Family Court dismissed the original petition.
6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
7. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellants that, the conveyance of property under Ext.A1 in
favour of the 1st respondent was only in the nature of
'Sthreedhana' property of Bindu and it belonged to her.
Therefore, though A1 is in the name of the 1 st respondent, he
would not have any right over the property. It is also
alleged that it is of the conduct of the 1 st respondent that
led to the suicide of Bindu and that he is dis-entitled to
inherit any of the assets of Bindu.
8. We find that, even if we accept the argument of
the learned counsel for the appellants that the property was
'Sthreedhana' property of Bindu and belonged exclusively to
her, the claim of the petitioners cannot succeed. Ext.B4 is
a copy of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.22171 of 2008 of this
Court. The writ petition arose from the proceedings in
2026:KER:6988
execution for claim for maintenance, which was initiated by
Bindu. On her death, it was sought to be prosecuted by her
parents. As per Ext.B4 judgment, the Division Bench of this
Court held that Bindu had died issue-less and that the sole
legal heir is the husband, who is the 1st respondent herein.
After analysing the relevant statutory provisions under the
Hindu Succession Act, this Court concluded thus;
"We find that the combined effect of Section 15 (1) (a) and Rule 1 of
Section 16 is that the entire asset of Bindu, who had died issue-less, would
devolve upon her husband only."
Therefore, it is now not open to the petitioners to contend
that they are the legal heirs of Bindu. Ext.B4 judgment
concludes the issue. That apart, there is no material to
find that the husband abetted the suicide. The husband
having been held to be the legal heir, the conveyance by the
husband, namely, Ext.A2, is valid.
9. Coming to the claim for the gold ornaments, the
Family Court found that there was no evidence to find that
2026:KER:6988
25 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to Bindu at the
time of marriage and the same were misappropriated by the 1 st
respondent. Not even the photographs relating to the
marriage were produced to substantiate that she was wearing
so much quantity of gold ornaments at the time of marriage.
Apart from that, for the very same reason mentioned supra,
the 1st respondent being the sole legal heir of Bindu, the
claim by the petitioners cannot be sustained.
10. On the above discussions, we concur with the
Family Court in having rejected the claim of the
petitioners.
Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No
costs.
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
