ALPHONSA Vs. NEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the parents-in-law of the 1st respondent, who filed O.P.No.1941 of 2010 before the Family Court, Thrissur, seeking to recover a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- being the parental share and value of gold ornaments, from appellants with interest. The 2nd respondent in appeal is the son of appellants as well as the husband of the 1st respondent. No relief was claimed by wife against husband, even though he was arrayed as 3rd respondent in the original petition. The appellants were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in the court below. A decree was granted for recovery of Rs.11,00,000/- against the appellants personally as well as the petition schedule property of five cents owned by the 1st appellant allowing the original petitioner to realise the decree amount by sale of the property.

(2.) The spouses were married on 31.12.2006 and they have a minor child. The allegation raised by the 1st respondent, who is the petitioner in O.P.No.1941 of 2010 is that when she was betrothed to the 2nd respondent, husband, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was entrusted by her father with appellants on an understanding that the amount should be kept for her benefit as the trustees. But, the cash amount was converted for the personal use of the appellants. The 1st respondent also claimed that she was adorned with 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage and out of the ornaments, 40 were taken by the appellants for discharging their liability towards a chitty prized from a private kuri company. It is stated that in return for the entire benefits received, the appellants agreed to assign petition schedule land owned by the 1st appellant, the mother-in-law in favour of the 1st respondent/petitioner and as assurance towards the proposed assignment, Ext.A1 original title deed of the land was also entrusted with her. It is stated that, since the appellants did not keep their words, the 1st respondent filed the present original petition for recovery of cash amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the value of 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments calculated at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per sovereign, from the appellants.

(3.) The appellants denied the alleged entrustment of cash amount as well as having taken away 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments alleged to be owned by the 1st respondent. Their contention in the objection is that they were against the 2nd respondent marrying the 1st respondent, since bride was not a good choice to the family. It is contended that all preparations and negotiations in connection with the marriage were held at the sole instance and responsibility of the 2nd respondent himself. Appellants and their daughters did not at all intervene in the matter, except attending the marriage conducted on 31.12.2006. It is said that even after the respondents started to reside under the same roof also, they cooked separately and lived independently. There was no need or occasion for demanding gold ornaments of the 1st respondent. The loan liability with private kuri institution was discharged by making use of funds raised by sale of first appellant's property, as evidenced from Ext.B2 sale deed dated 22.12.2008. Ext.A1 title deed happened to be handed over to the respondents in connection with totally a different situation as could be borne out from Ext.B1, which is an agreement signed by the respondents and appellants in the presence of local mediators as on 21.02.2009. Ext.B1 came into existence when appellants agreed to assign petition schedule land in favour of respondents in consideration of his having undertaken to meet the marriage expenses of his sister and also maintain the parents and bear all allied expenses after the marriage of his sister. Ext.A1 title deed was entrusted with the 2nd respondent for arranging execution of assignment deed. It was not returned so far though promise to execute assignment deed was not fulfilled.