LAWS(KER)-2004-1-23

V SUSEELAN Vs. T P LEELA

Decided On January 22, 2004
V.SUSEELAN Appellant
V/S
T.P.LEELA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the husband against the judgment of the Family Court, Thrissur in O. P. No. 719 of 1997.

(2.) O.P. No. 719 of 1997 (originally filed before the Sub Court, Thrissur as O. S. No. 306 of 1992) was filed by the appellant against his wife for a declaration that the petition scheduled immovable properties which were purchased in the name of the wife actually belonged to him. The first item in the schedule was 14 cents of property with a building thereon and the second item is another 14 cents of property. The wife, first respondent herein, filed three cases against the husband seeking return of certain immovable properties as well as gold ornaments. The petition filed by the husband as well as the three petitions filed by the wife were dismissed by the Family Court. Since appeal is filed only against the judgment in O.P. No. 719 of 1997, we are considering only that matter.

(3.) It is the definite case of the appellant that he was employed in the Gulf countries. On 30-9-1976 he purchased petition schedule item No. 1 and on 6-12-1976 he purchased item No. II, the adjacent property, both in the name of the first respondent. According to the appellant, both the properties were purchased with his funds. Thereafter a residential building was constructed in the petition schedule item No. 1 and fund for the construction was also provided by the appellant. According to the appellant, he is the real owner of the properties and the first respondent wife is only a benami. It was also contended by the appellant that the building in the property was rented out to the second respondent and after the filing of the suit, the first respondent sold the petition schedule properties to the third respondent. Ext. B20 is the sale deed executed by the first respondent with the third respondent. Since sale deed was executed pendente lite, sale is invalid. There is no contention that Ext. B20 was executed to defeat the rights of the appellant or that the sale consideration is inadequate.