JOHN BASTIN Vs. ROSILY MAGIE JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common order dated 4.10.2018, passed by the Family Court, Kollam in I.A.Nos. 2868/2018,2881/2018, 2882/2018 and 2924/2018 is challenged by the husband, who filed the O.P.1227/16 before the said court. The O.P before the Family court was filed seeking declaration that the petitioner is the sole owner of the petition schedule property, despite execution of sale deed No.1836/1991 dated 11.7.1991 in favour of the respondent/wife, and also for a permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with his possession of the property and residence in the building and also from alienating the property.

(2.) During cross-examination of the respondent/wife as RW1, the petitioner confronted her with a letter dated 1.4.1993, alleged to have been sent to him by her, while he was in gulf. She denied of having sent the letter and accordingly the letter was not admitted by the Family Court in evidence. After closure of entire evidence in O.P.1227/2016, he sought to reopen the evidence and also to send the disputed letter for expert opinion with respect to its handwriting. These two petitions (I.A.No.2881/2018 and I.A. No.2868/2018) were opposed by respondent, whereas no objection was taken to other two petitions. The lower court, after hearing both sides, found that, the contents in the letter sought to be confronted did not in fact contain any relevant facts having bearing on the case set up by the petitioner in the O.P. It felt that, since the letter was produced in court after a long interval of 15 years, its genuineness itself was open to doubt. After taking note that there was direction issued by High Court for expeditious disposal of the case within a time frame, the impugned order was passed dismissing all the four petitions. The impugned order has come up for challenge before us in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the contents of the letter dated 1.4.1993 and submitted that, it has due bearing and relevance in the adjudication of the matters in dispute between the spouses. The spouses were married on 9.12.1990. The petitioner purchased the property as per sale deed dated 11.7.1991 in the sole name of the respondent, after hardly six months of their marriage. His case therefore is that, the petition schedule property was acquired in the name of wife by utilising his entire funds. She is only a trustee of the property. Being a name lender she has no title, right or any interest except to hold the property on his behalf.