BINDULAKSHMI Vs. REMA RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by petitioner in O.P. (O.S. No) 988/209 by the Family Court, Alappuzha. The claim is for return of 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Admittedly, the petitioner married the 1st respondent on 16.01.2003 and during 2005, matrimonial issues, had arisen between the parties, as a result of which, they decided to separate. According to the petitioner, a mediation took place and the mother-in-law along with sister-in-law, 2nd respondent, executed an agreement to return 65 sovereigns of her gold ornaments within a period of 3 months. Since the same had not been returned, she had approached the Family Court for return of gold ornaments. Respondents took up a contention that they have not executed any such agreement. There was a financial transaction with the father of petitioner. He obtained a promissory note from the 2nd respondent, she had also signed and given certain blank stamp papers. A suit was filed on the basis of promissory note for recovery of money as O.S No. 79/2006 which was later decreed and after 4 years, a claim has been made after satisfying the said decree. The petitioner had made a claim after a considerably long period to recover 65 sovereign of gold ornaments. It is therefore submitted that though the signature in the agreement is that of respondents 2 and 3, the contents were fabricated by the petitioner or her father.

(2.) Family Court dismissed the suit on a finding that the agreement was not proved.

(3.) Apparently, this is a case in which all the parties were not examined. Evidence had been adduced only on the side of petitioner. She was examined as PW1. PW2 is her father, and PW3 is a witness to Ext.A2. When a claim is made based on Ext.A2, an agreement definitely the claim has to be made within the period of limitation. The Family Court observed that in the light of Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as the dispute has arisen with reference to the marital tie, the suit is not barred by limitation.