Decided on March 06,2017

AMMINI Appellant
Shiji, W/O.Late Santhosh, Vasavamangalathu Respondents


K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. - (1.) The first respondent in OP.No.1038/2003 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla is the appellant in MA.No.378/2006 while the second respondent in the same case is the appellant in MA.No.349/2005. The first respondent herein married the son of the appellants on 5.7.2000. He died on 2.6.2003. According to the first respondent, at the time of marriage, Rs. 50,000/- and 47 sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted to the respondents in the Court below by her father. Thereafter on 5.3.2001, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was given by her father to them for the purpose of purchasing a jeep in order to augment the income of the first respondent and since the amount was not sufficient, her gold ornaments were sold and a jeep was purchased in the name of the husband of the first respondent. Lather he died on 2.6.2003 due to jaundice while he was at Bombay. The cremation was conducted 3.6.2003. After the cremation, the appellants herein had executed a power of attorney in respect of joint property authorizing the father of the first respondent to sell the same and appropriate the amount due from their son. Thereafter, when they tried to sell the property, it was objected by the appellants. That prompted the the first respondent herein to file the suit for return of 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 2,50,000/- paid in connection with the marriage.
(2.) The first respondent in the Court below,who is the appellant in Mat.A. No.378/2006 remained absent and he was set ex parte in the court below. The appellant in MA.349/2005 appeared and filed written statement denying the allegations. She had stated that at the time of marriage only 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 25,000/- alone was given to their son and they have not appropriated any amount or gold ornaments. They have not received any amount for the purpose of purchasing the jeep. She also contended that the jeep was later taken by the financier as the installments could not be paid. She had also contended that they have not executed any power of attorney and that was obtained by fraud and they have no intention to sell the property and they never authorized the father of the first respondent herein to sell the property as well. So she prayed for dismissal of the application. Though she filed written statement, later she also did not appear.
(3.) The first respondent herein filed proof affidavit in lieu of her examination and Pws 2 and 3, her neighbour and the Secretary of the SNDP Sakha of that locality were examined and PW4 her father was also examined. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the appellants. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below accepted the case of the first respondent herein and decreed the petition directing the respondents in the Courts below to pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and return the gold ornaments of 41 sovereigns or in the alternate its value of Rs. 1,64,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeals have been filed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.