HARIHARA VARMA Vs. GIRIJA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition under Art.227 of the Constitution is directed against Ext. P3 order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad. Ext. P3 is passed by the Family Court in IA 527/12 in OP 351/12. The O.P was for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's entry into and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties. It is admitted that the respondent is in occupation of the petition schedule properties. The IA was for a temporary injunction in the lines of the perpetual injunction which was sought for in the Original Petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was that drama of a marriage was conducted between him and the respondent on the basis of an oral agreement of surrogacy as the petitioner did not have any issues out of the lawful wedlock he had with one Vimala Devi. According to the petitioner, the agreement between the parties was that a total amount of Rs.5 lakhs will be paid by the petitioner to the respondent provided the respondent conceives his child. According to the petitioner the first instalment of Rs.1 lakh is already paid. The respondent was accommodated in the petition schedule property which was purchased by the petitioner for the implementation of the surrogacy agreement. The petitioner alleges that the respondent has gone back on the terms of the agreement and hence, he has repudiated the agreement and he does not want the respondent to occupy the property at all.

(3.) Serious counter affidavit was filed by the respondent. Significantly absolutely no evidence and much less documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner to substantiate his case of having entered into surrogacy agreement and having staged drama of marriage along with the respondent. The learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the IA holding that no prima facie case is made out for passage of injunction order against the respondent who is in actual physical occupation.