PRADEESH Vs. S.M.SHEEBA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are respondents 2, 9, 10, 11 and 5 in O.P.1544/2017 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. They are challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Family Court in I.A.3/2023, 5/2023 and 6/2023 holding that the above OP is maintainable before the Family Court. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are herein referred to as per their rank in Ext.P1 Original Petition.)

(2.) Ext.P1 Original Petition was filed by the wife against her husband namely the 1st respondent and ten other respondents who are assignees of the properties scheduled in the petition. She preferred the above OP praying for realization of a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs, return of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments, a decree for setting aside Exts.P4 to P6 sale deeds as well as subsequent sale deeds namely Exts.P7 to P15. The petitioner and 1st respondent got married on 26/12/2002 and in that wedlock a child was born on 23/12/2003. Subsequently, the marital relationship between them strained. According to the petitioner, she is the title holder of petition C schedule property consisting of 4 acre 20 cents which she obtained as per partition deed No.2230 of 1991.The 1st respondent started harassing her and compelled her to sell a portion of C schedule property. The 1st respondent along with his sisters and mother induced her to sell ten cents of property from the C schedule, promising to assign another ten cents of property in her favour, from their family property. Accordingly, she was taken to the Sub Registrar's office and she had signed in a sale agreement for selling ten cents of property from the C Schedule. She never went to the Sub Registrar's office thereafter. Subsequently it was revealed that the 1st respondent produced another lady before the Sub Registry and executed Exts.P3 to P6 sale deeds assigning the C schedule property in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter the 1st respondent assigned the above properties in favour of respondents 3 to 11 as per Exts.P7 to P15 documents. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent along with other respondents colluded together, forged the above documents by impersonation with the intention to snatch away her property. In that respect, a criminal case was registered against the 1st respondent at her instance. It is also alleged that the 1st respondent appropriated her 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments as well as patrimony of Rs.5.00 Lakhs. It was in the above context that she filed the OP for realisation of the patrimony of Rs.5.00 Lakhs, return of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and also for setting aside the above documents.

(3.) The contention taken by respondents 2 to 11 is that they are bona fide purchasers of the schedule properties. Further, according to them, the petitioner in collusion with the 1st respondent, filed the suit to defeat their rights. They would further contend that since the main reliefs are against respondents 2 to 11, who are not parties to the marriage, the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the OP. Challenging the maintainability of the OP, respondents 2, 9 and 10 filed I.A.3/2023. I.A.5/2023 was filed by the 11th respondent and I.A.6/2023 was filed by the 5th respondent. As per the impugned order dtd. 20/9/2023, the Family Court found that the OP is maintainable before it. Aggrieved by the above order, the respondents 2, 9 and 10 in the OP filed this petition.