T.J. ANTONY Vs. ASHA SONY @ ASHA ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in I.A.No.2036/2016 in O.P.No.740/2016, dated 29.1.2019, is under challenge in this original petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners herein are the petitioners in I.A.2036/2016. They are the respondents in O.P.740/2016. The original petition before the Family Court was instituted by the respondent herein, seeking return of money, gold ornaments and other articles. Total claim in the original petition is a sum of Rs.1,43,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore forty three lakhs only).

(2.) Along with the suit, the respondent had filed I.A.1267/2016 before the court below seeking attachment before judgment of two items of immovable properties, mentioned as B and C schedule. The court below passed a conditional order of attachment directing the petitioners herein to furnish security for the plaint claim. B schedule is a property having an extent of 77 cents and C schedule is a property having an extent of 20 cents with a residential building contained therein. The conditional order of attachment continued thereafter, since the year 2016. The petitioners filed I.A.No.2036/2016 seeking to lift the conditional attachment with respect to B schedule, by contending that, the C schedule property alone is having valuation of Rs.1,95,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore ninety five lakhs only) which is sufficient to secure the plaint claim. The respondent herein objected I.A.2036/2016 by contending that there is dues to the extent of more than Rs. 2 Crores due to her and that the value claimed with respect to C schedule property is not genuine. It was pointed out that, the building situated in C schedule property is an old one and it will not fetch any value.

(3.) The court below, after adjudicating the rival contentions, found that, Ext.A2 certificate issued by a private valuer would indicate that the C schedule is having a total valuation of Rs.1,95,00,000/-. It was found, the C schedule belongs to the 2nd petitioner and the 1st petitioner is having only a share in the B schedule property. It was further observed that, a case for maintenance filed by the respondent is also pending before that court and if any order is passed in that case, the 1st petitioner herein alone will be bound liable. Since the 1st petitioner is having only a right in B schedule property and because he has no other properties, the attachment if lifted, the respondent may not be in a position to secure her rights. The Family Court found that, even if C schedule property is sufficient to satisfy the plaint claim, there is no reason to lift the attachment over B schedule property. Accordingly, I.A.2036/2016 was dismissed.