GEORGE Vs. REETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent(husband) in O.P.752/2014 before the Family Court,Chavara is challenging two separate orders passed on 21.10.2017 by that court against him, allowing I.As. 1748/2015, and I.A.404/2015 filed by his wife and daughter, who are the petitioners in the O.P.

(2.) Wife and daughter filed the case claiming recovery of gold and arrears of past maintenance from the husband cum father and obtained in I.A. 1572/2014 an order of conditional attachment of 4.05 ares of property, comprised in re-survey number 420/8. The petitioner herein, who is the husband and the respondent before the court below entered appearance and filed I.A.1748/2015 seeking to lift the attachment over 4.05 ares of land, after accepting another adjacent land measuring 10.73 ares comprised in re-survey No.420/8 offered by him and held in the joint names of himself and the wife in which he claims to have undivided half right. This property, according to him, was purchased as per sale deed 2363/1978 on 19.12.1978 with the common funds of the parties. The respondents herein filed serious objections to the request for lifting of the attachment, on the ground that the half right of him in property which is offered as security, in fact exclusively belonged to first respondent as it was purchased with the patrimony given by her parents. The petitioner's name in the sale deed was incorporated only as a name lender, as per the custom being followed in their community. According to the respondent, notwithstanding the sale deed being in the joint name of the spouses, the petitioner does not have any disposing power over the said property and therefore it is not worth offering as security in lieu of the attached land.

(3.) According to the petitioner his undivided half share fetches a minimum market value of Rs.25 lakh and is sufficient to satisfy the decree if passed in favour of the respondents. The claim of the respondents in the O.P. is for an amount of Rs.8,16,000/- and interest due thereon. There is no much dispute between parties that, if the half right of petitioner offered is lawfully accepted as security, it would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the respondents in the O.P.