MUSTHAFA Vs. BUHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order by which an application filed by the petitioners as IA No.603/12 was dismissed. The application was filed by the petitioners inter alia contending that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to try OP No. 562/2011 (Ext.P1) filed by the respondent herein. The original petition is filed seeking for a direction to set aside document No.452/2009 of the Sub Registrar Office, Tirur and for other consequential reliefs by way of injunction etc.

(2.) The facts in the original petition are as under:- The respondent herein married the second petitioner on 18/3/2007. A child was born to them on 17/6/2009. The respondent was in possession of 33 cents of property which he had obtained as per a partition deed. Property was comprised in Re.Sy.No.300/1. It is stated that the above property was transferred by sale in favour of the first petitioner in collusion with the second petitioner. The first petitioner is the brother of second petitioner. The property was transferred in favour of the first petitioner without the knowledge of the respondent. The respondent had come to know about the same only when petitioners started receiving rent from the tenants. When he questioned about the same, the 2 nd petitioner had taken all the belongings and other documents and had left the matrimonial house along with the minor child. Though several mediations took place, no action was taken by the second petitioner to return to the matrimonial house whereas she insisted that the respondent should live with the second petitioner at her house and should give the property to her brother. It is alleged that the respondent was informed by the petitioners that another property was available for sale very near to the property held by him and they insisted that the respondent should purchase the said property. Respondent had given a power of attorney as requested by the petitioners in favour of the second petitioner. The power of attorney was registered before the Sub Registrar office on 2/2/2009. After the respondent left abroad, it was noticed that the petitioners started receiving the rent from the premises and on enquiry it was noticed that the first petitioner had purchased the property. It is alleged that the sale deed was executed on the premise that what is being executed was Power of Attorney. According to him, he had not assigned any property in favour of the first petitioner and there was no necessity for the same. He further contends that he was asked to sign in a document prepared by the first petitioner on the bonafide belief that they were doing so for the purpose of the respondent. According to him, he never intended to assign the property in the name of the first petitioner and he had not signed any document as if it was a sale deed. He had signed a document believing that it is a Power of Attorney.

(3.) In the application filed challenging the maintainability of the Original Petition, it was contended that the averments made in the petition do not become a family dispute which requires adjudication by the Family Court. The Family Court after considering the matter observed that in the light of a few judgments of the High Court, a dispute regarding property can be considered by the Family Court and even as against a relative of a party to the marriage and therefore the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition.