Jameela P.S. v. Muhammad Basheer (through his legal representatives) and others

**1** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 19TH POUSHA, 1941** **Mat.Appeal.No.208 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 83/2007 DATED 29-12-2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **JAMEELA P.S W/O.MOHAMMED BASHEER, THOTTUPURATHU VEEDU,PLANCHUVADU, VENGALOOR PO, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 MUHAMMED SHERIF CHARUVILPURAYIDTHIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR PO,KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 691. 2 AISHA SAJI W/O.SAJI GEORGE, MANJATTETHU HOUSE,PERINGAVU, THRISSUR-680 008. 3 SULEKHA M I W/O DR. M SAJAN, CHARUVILPURAYIDTHIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR PO,KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 691. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.K..VIDYASAGAR, CAVEATOR R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH** **THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-112019, ALONG WITH OP (FC).148/2017(R), OP (FC).429/2017(R), THE COURT ON 09-01-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **2** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 19TH POUSHA, 1941** **OP (FC).No.148 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. 493/2016 IN OP 83/2007 DATED 29-122016 OF FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 MUHAMMED SHERIF AGED 57 YEARS S/O.LATE MUHAMMED ALI,CHARIVUPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE,VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2 AISHA SAJI AGED 59 YEARS W/O.SAJI GEORGE,MANGATTETHU HOUSE, TRISSUR DISTRICT. 3 SULEKHA M. AGED 55 YEARS W/O.DR.M.SHAJAN,CHARIVUPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE,VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **P.S.JAMEELA W/O.MUHAMMED BASHEER,THOTTUPURATHU VEEDU, PLANCHUVADU,VENGALLOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA 682 855** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA** **THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-11-** **3** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** **2019, ALONG WITH OP (FC).429/2017(R), Mat.Appeal.208/2017, THE COURT ON 09-01-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **4** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 19TH POUSHA, 1941** **OP (FC).No.429 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.6.2017 IN I.A. 62/2017 IN OP 53/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **JAMEELA P.S. W/O. MOHAMMED BASHEER, THOTTUPURATHU VEEDU,PLANCHUVADU, VENGALOOR P.O, THODUPUZHA.** **BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 MUHAMMED SHERIF CHARUVILPURAYIDTHIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR P.O, KONNI,PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 691. 2 AISHA SAJI W/O. SAJI GEORGE, MANJATTETHU HOUSE,PERINGAVU, THRISSUR - 680 008. 3 SULEKHA M.I W/O. DR. M. SAJAN, CHARUVILPURAYIDTHIL HOUSE,VAKAYAR P.O, KONNI,PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 691.** **R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR** **THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-112019, ALONG WITH OP (FC).148/2017(R), Mat.Appeal.208/2017, THE COURT ON 09-01-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **5** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** The appellant in Mat.Appeal No.208/2017 is the respondent in OP No.83/2007 of the Family Court, Thodupuzha. The respondents in this appeal are the legal representatives of late Sri.Muhammad Basheer, the late husband of the appellant. 2. Late Sri.Muhammad Basheer had filed the above original petition seeking to declare him as the owner in possession of petition 'A' schedule property and the residential building therein; that he is the owner of petition 'B' schedule movable articles, to restrain the appellant from removing 'B' schedule movable articles from 'A' schedule property and for other consequential reliefs. **6** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** 3. The Family Court by its judgment and decree dated 29.5.2010 had partly allowed the original petition by declaring that late Sri.Muhammad Basheer was the owner in possession of petition 'A' schedule property and the residential building and also restrained the appellant from creating any document touching the property. The relief in respect of petition 'B' schedule movable articles was rejected. 4. The appellant as well as late Sri.Muhammad Basheer challenged the judgment and decree before this Court by filing Mat. Appeal Nos 507 and 580 of 2010. This Court by a common judgment dated 17.9.2012 dismissed Mat.Appeal No.507/2010 filed by the appellant, but allowed Mat. Appeal No.580/2010 filed by late Muhammad Basheer, by remanding the original **7** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** petition to the Family Court for the limited purpose of reconsidering the claim of late Sri.Muhammed Basheer over petition 'B' schedule movable articles. 5. The Family Court by the impugned order dated 29.12.2016 allowed the claim of late Sri.Muhammad Basheer and declared that he is the owner of petition 'B' schedule movable articles and restrained the appellant from removing the articles from petition 'A' schedule building. 6. It is challenging the order dated 29.12.2016 in O.P No.83/2007 that the present Mat.Appeal is filed. The parties are for the sake of convenience referred to as 'appellant' and 'respondents' as referred to in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal. Late Sri.Muhammad **8** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** Basheer is hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'. 7. OP(FC) No.429/2017 is filed by the appellant against Ext P4 order passed by the Family Court holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain O.P No.53/2016. The said original petition is filed by the respondents, seeking partition of petition 'A' schedule properties, against the appellant, subsequent to the common judgment of this Court, and the passing away of the deceased. 8. OP(FC) No.148/2017 is filed by the respondents against the appellant challenging the order in I.A No.493/2016 in O.P No.83/2007, holding that the appellant has not committed an offence punishable under Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. As the issues in the above three cases are **9** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** intertwined, they are consolidated and are disposed of by this common judgment. 10. The deceased had filed OP No.83/2007, inter alia, seeking a decree to declare that he is the owner of petition 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. It was his case that he was married to the appellant on 9.3.1996. At the time of marriage, the deceased was employed in Saudi Arabia. According to him, the appellant hailed from a poor family. She was employed as a ClassIV employee in the Thodupuzha Municipality. 11. The deceased further averred that the appellant persuaded him to buy a house and property at Thodupuzha and, accordingly, he sent money to the appellant, who purchased 10 cents of land as per registered sale deed bearing No.2026/1998 dated 3.8.1998. Subsequently, **10** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** another 10 cents of land adjacent to the above property was purchased on 28.12.1998 as per sale deed No.3654/1998. The entire sale consideration was sent by the deceased to the appellant. It was much later in February 2006 that the deceased learnt that the appellant had clandestinely purchased the petition 'A' schedule property in her name, instead of the name of the deceased. The deceased had also sent money to construct the residential building in the property. However, after the deceased returned to India for good, the appellant in connivance with her younger sister's husband, Sathar, refused to cooperate with the deceased and prevented him to cherish his plans. Though the deceased wanted to sell his property, the appellant and the Sathar prohibited him to sell the property. The **11** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** relationship between the couple got strained. 12. While so, on 20.2.2007, Sathar went to the house of the deceased and beat him up. The deceased preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Idukki. The deceased and the appellant were summoned to the police station, on 23.3.2007, where the appellant refused to sell the property and proclaimed that the petition schedule properties absolutely belonged to her. The deceased accordingly filed the original petition inter-alia seeking a decree to declare that he is the owner in possession of the petition schedule properties. 13. The original petition was resisted by the appellant, who filed her written objections. According to her, the original petition was barred by limitation. She claimed that her family and **12** ## **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** herself were doing well, and it is with their resources that the petition 'A' schedule property was purchased. She denied the assertion of the deceased that the sale consideration was sent by him to purchase the property, and that the deceased did not have title, interest or possession over the petition schedule properties. She also contended that the petition 'A' schedule property was purchased in the year 1998 with the full knowledge and consent of the deceased. It is only because she refused to sell the property and give the consideration to the deceased, to start a business, that he filed the original petition. She prayed the original petition to be dismissed. 14. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the deceased. The appellant examined RWs 1 and 2 and marked **13** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** Exts B1 to B5. Exts X1 to X3 were summoned and marked. 15. The Family Court on evaluation of the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the appellant had received an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- from the deceased since 1997. Ext A3 passbook substantiated the aspect. The Family Court also found that prior to the the had no or marriage, appellant savings deposits in her name. She was only employed as a sweeper and drawing a meager salary of Rs 5112/- in January, 2003. The property was purchased in the year 1998 and the construction of the residential building was completed by 2002. Exts A3 to A6 series and Exts X1 to X3 series substantiated that the deceased had sent substantial amounts every month which was **14** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** credited to the bank account of the appellant. This fact is admitted by the appellant in her crossexamination. The Family Court, accordingly, disbelieved the version of the appellant that she had sufficient source of income for purchasing the property and constructing the building therein. Accordingly, the Family Court came to the inescapable conclusion that though the property was registered in the name of the appellant, it was purchased with the funds of the deceased. Hence, the Family Court declared that the deceased was the absolute owner in possession of petition 'A' schedule property. However, the Family Court dismissed the deceased's claim in respect of petition 'B' schedule movable articles. 16. This Court on a complete reappraisal of the pleadings, evidence and the authoritative **15** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** precedents on the issues involved in the case, confirmed the findings of the Family Court with regard to the ownership, title and possession of the deceased over petition 'A' schedule property. But, this Court found that the Family Court had erred in rejecting the deceased's claim over petition 'B' schedule movable articles. Accordingly, by judgment dated 17.9.2012, this Court remanded the matter back to the Family Court for fresh consideration in respect of the deceased's right over petition 'B' schedule movable articles. 17. It is seen from the records that the appellant had challenged the common judgment dated 17.9.2012 passed by this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos.1426914270/2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court **16** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** dismissed the special leave petitions confirming the common judgment passed by this Court in Mat.Appeal Nos 507 and 580 of 2010. 18. During the pendency of the special leave petitions, the deceased passed away. Consequently, the respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal, the mother and sisters of the deceased, were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased. 19. The Family Court on the basis of the remand order passed by this Court reconsidered the deceased's claim in respect of petition 'B' schedule movable articles and by the impugned order dated 29.12.2016 came to the conclusion that the deceased was the owner of petition 'B' schedule movable articles and restrained the appellant from removing petition 'B' schedule **17** ## **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** movable articles from petition 'A' schedule building. It is challenging that order that the present Mat.Appeal is filed. 20. We have heard Sri.Dilip J.Akkara, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.C.K.Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the respondents. 21. From the facts and circumstances in the cases, the following points emerge for consideration: (i) Whether the appellant is the owner of petition 'B' schedule movable articles? (ii) Whether the Family Court has the jurisdiction to entertain O.P No.53/2016? iii) Whether the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal **18** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** Procedure? 22. As all the above points are intermixed, for the sake of convenience, we decide them together. 23. This Court by a detailed judgment dated 17.9.2012, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the deceased was the owner of the petition 'A' schedule property. However, since the Family Court had rejected the deceased's claim in respect of petition 'B' schedule movable articles, the case in respect of the said relief was remanded back to the Family Court for reconsideration. 24. It is undisputed that the appellant challenged the judgment passed by this Court **19** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the special leave petitions were dismissed, confirming the judgment passed by this Court in Mat.Appeal Nos 507 and 580 of 2010. Therefore, all that remains to be decided is whether the order passed by the Family Court in respect of the deceased's claim over petition 'B' schedule movable articles is justifiable and correct. 25. It is discernible from the records that the parties had not let in any additional evidence after the case was remanded to the Family Court. The Family Court on the basis of the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the deceased is the owner of petition 'B' schedule movable articles. 26. On a re-appreciation of the evidence, we find that the Family Court, as well as this Court **20** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** on an independent evaluation of the evidence, found that the deceased had by Exts A1 to A6 series and X1 to X3 series sent substantial amount of money to the appellant, with which petition 'A' schedule property was purchased and the building was constructed. It is not disputed that the petition 'B' schedule movable articles are stored in the residential building comprised in petition 'A' schedule property. The appellant has not produced a scrap of paper to substantiate that 'B' schedule movable articles were petition purchased with her own funds or resources. 27. In view of the findings of the Family Court and this Court in respect of petition 'A' schedule properties, it goes without saying that petition 'B' schedule movable articles were also purchased with the money sent by the deceased. **21** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** 28. The Family Court in the impugned order has found that the deceased - PW1 had given evidence to the effect that he purchased the petition 'B' schedule movable articles worth Rs 5,45,000/- with the money that he had sent while he was employed abroad. The appellant did not let in any contra evidence to disprove the evidence of the deceased. The Family Court also found that all the petition 'B' schedule movable articles were purchased at the time of the house warming of petition 'A' schedule building. Accordingly, the Family Court decreed the deceased's prayer for a declaration that he is the owner of petition 'B' schedule movable articles and consequently granted an order of injunction restraining the appellant from removing the petition 'B' schedule movable articles. **22** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** 29. We have re-appreciated the entire pleadings and evidence on record. We have also gone through the records in Mat.Appeal Nos 507 and 580 of 2010, including the Judges' papers. This Court by its common judgment in the above appeal has exhaustively dealt with the oral testimony of the witnesses as well as the documentary evidence on record. Ultimately, this Court found that the finding of the Family Court in respect of the declaration granted in favour of the deceased over the petition 'A' schedule property was perfectly legal and just. It was only in respect to the rejection of the deceased's claim over petition 'B' schedule movable articles, the case was remanded to the Family Court for fresh consideration. 30. On going through the evidence of PW1 as **23** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** well as RW1, particularly Exts A3 to A6 series and Exts X1 to X3 series documents, we find that the deceased had sent substantial amounts of money to the appellant, with which the appellant purchased and constructed the residential building. We find that it is with the same money that petition 'B' schedule movable articles were also purchased. The documentary evidence also proves that the appellant did not have sufficient money to purchase the petition 'B' schedule movable articles for an amount of Rs 5,45,000/-. The appellant had not produced any document to substantiate that she was the owner of petition 'B' schedule movable articles. The Family Court has rightly come to the irresistible conclusion that petition 'B' schedule movable articles belonged to the deceased and consequently granted an order **24** ## **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** of injunction restraining the appellant from removing petition 'B' schedule movable articles from petition 'A' schedule building. We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Family Court declaring that the deceased is the owner of petition 'B' schedule movable articles and restraining the appellant by an order of injunction from removing the articles. There is a ring of truth in the case put-forth by the deceased, which we accept. Accordingly, point No.(i) is found in favour of the deceased and Mat.Appeal No.208/2017 is dismissed. 31. Now we deal with point No.(ii) in respect of O.P (FC) No.429/2017 filed by the appellant, contending that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain O.P No.53/2016 filed by the respondents, seeking for the partition of **25** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** petition 'A' schedule property. 32. The appellant filed I.A No.62/2017 (Ext P3) questioning the jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain O.P No.53/2016 because the appellant is only the wife of the deceased and the respondents are only his legal representatives. Therefore, the appellant contended that the dispute raised in OP No.53/2016 is purely a civil dispute falling outside the purview of the Family Courts Act, and the Family Court does not have the inherent jurisdiction to entertain the original petition. 33. The Family Court by the impugned order dated 17.6.2017 held that the dispute raised in the original petition squarely falls within Explanation (d) to Sec.7(1) of the Family Courts Act. **26** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** 34. According to the Family Court, O.P No.53/2016 was filed seeking a decree for partition only because of the relationship between the deceased and the appellant arising out of their marriage. On the death of the deceased, by interstate succession, the respondents who are the legal heirs of the deceased along with the appellant are entitled to seek for the partition of the 'A' schedule property by metes and bounds. The Family Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the original petition. The Family Court consequently dismissed I.A No.62/2017. 35. It is no longer res integra in view of the plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Abdul Jaleel vs Shahida [2003(2) KLT 403(SC)]** has held that jurisdiction of the Family **27** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** Court extends in relation to properties of the spouses or of either of them irrespective of the claim whether the property is claimed during the subsistence of the marriage or otherwise. This Court in **Leby Issac vs Leena M.Ninan [2005(3) KLT 665]** has gone out to hold that the Family Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by the husband for recovery of money as well as the compensation and damages from his wife and father-in-law. This Court in **Anilkumar vs Sheela [2011(4) KLT 120]** has held that claim for recovery of money by wife against husband's brother is also a dispute falling under Explanation (d) to Sec.7(1) of the Family Courts Act. 36. In view of the above categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court **28** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** and this Court holding that the Family Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute arising out of the marriage, which need not necessarily be only between the parties to the marriage, but can include their relatives and also third parties, we have no doubt in our mind that it is the Family Court which has the jurisdiction to decide O.P No.53/2016. Furthermore, undisputedly, O.P No.53/2016 has been filed by the respondents seeking a decree of partition, to partition the properties of the deceased which was involved in the earlier round of litigation in O.P No.83/2007 which led to the filing of Mat.Appeal Nos. 507 and 580 of 2010 and subsequently Mat.Appeal No.208 of 2017, which we have discussed in point No.(i). 37. The appellant does not have a case that the properties sought to be partitioned in the **29** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** original petition are not properties covered by the judgment in O.P No.83/2007. Admittedly, the property belonged to the deceased, the appellant's husband. It was the appellant who impleaded respondents 1 to 3 on the assertion that they are the legal representatives of the deceased. Thus, the relationship between the appellant and the respondents is a relationship arising out of the appellant's marriage with the deceased. 38. The property that is involved in the original petition is a property that is succeeded by the legal heirs of the deceased, on the basis of the marriage between the appellant and the deceased. And, the respondents are the only other legal heirs of the deceased. Hence, we have no doubt in our mind that Ext P4 order passed by **30** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** the Family Court does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or irregularity. We confirm Ext P4 order passed by the Family Court holding that it has jurisdiction to decide O.P No.53/2016. Hence, point No.(ii) is found against the appellant and OP(FC) No.429/2017 is dismissed. 39. As regards point No.(iii) in respect of OP(FC) No.148/2017, respondents had filed I.A No.493/2016 in O.P No.83/2007 alleging that the appellant had made false declarations before the Family Court and, therefore, was liable to be prosecuted for perjury. 40. The application was stoutly opposed by the appellant who filed a written objection, inter alia, contending that at the time of marriage the deceased had told her that he was an orphan. After the death of the deceased, the appellant **31** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** noticed two passports in the residential building wherein she found contradictory details furnished in both the passports. She was convinced by the materials that she had obtained that the respondents were not the legal representatives of the deceased. In the said circumstances, under the said firm belief, she made statements and declarations before the Family Court. Hence she bona fidely produced Exts B1 to B3. However, the Family Court with the documents available on record came to the conclusion that the respondents were the legal representatives of the deceased. Accordingly, they were impleaded as the additional petitioners in OP No.83/2007. The Family Court after evaluating the pleadings and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant had not committed **32** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** the offence of perjury and is not liable to be proceeded against under Sec.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed I.A No.493/2016. 41. From the materials available on record, we concur with the opinion of the Family Court in the impugned Ext P7 order, that the appellant has not committed an offence punishable for perjury and is not liable to be proceeded against under Sec.340 of Cr.P.C. We do not find any error or illegality committed by the Family Court in passing Ext P7 order. In the result, point No.(iii) is found against the respondents and OP(FC) No.148/2017 is dismissed. 42. In the result, (i) Mat.Appeal No.208/2017 is dismissed confirming the order dated 29.12.2016 in O.P **33** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** No.83/2007. (ii) OP(FC) No.429/2017 is dismissed upholding the order dated 17.6.2017 in I.A 62/2017 in O.P No.53/2016. (iii) OP(FC) No.148/2017 is dismissed upholding the order dated 29.12.2016 in I.A No.493/2016 in O.P No.83/2007. (iv) All the interlocutory applications filed in the above cases will stand disposed of. (v) The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. **Sd/K.HARILAL JUDGE** **Sd/-** **C.S.DIAS** **JUDGE** **==> picture [88 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> SKS/4.1.2020<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> **34** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 148/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXT.P1**|**THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED**| |---|---| ||**NO.3198/95 DATED 12/6/2008 S R O KONNI**| ||**EXECUTED BY LATE MUHAMMED BASHEER**| |**EXT.P2**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSPORT BEARING**| ||**NO.K517356 OF LATE MUHAMMED BASHEER.**| |**EXT.P3**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE**| ||**BEARING NO.K.1963/1973 OF LATE MUHAMMED**| ||**BASHEER**| |**EXT.P4**|**ADMISSION REGISTER RELATING TO MUHAMMED**| ||**BASHEER, ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTER OF HOLY**| ||**FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL KOTTAYAM**| |**EXT.P5**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE**| ||**DATED 12/6/2008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY**| ||**MUHAYIDHEEN JUMA MASJID VENGALLOOR,**| ||**THODUPUZHA**| |**EXT.P6**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED**| ||**16/10/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE**| ||**ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR, KONNI**| |**EXT.P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.493/2016**| ||**IN OP NO.83/2007 DATED 29/12/2016 OF THE**| ||**FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA**| **35** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 429/2017** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE O.P 53/16 DATED 4-216 OF FAMILY COURT THODUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER DATED 15-7-16 FILED BY PETITIONER IN EXT.P - 1 O.P EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF IA 62/17 DATED 3-3-17 IN OP 53/16 OF FAMILY COURT THODUPUZHA FOR HEARING ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AS PRELIMINARY ISSUE. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 17-6-17 OF FAMILY COURT THODUPUZHA.** **36** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** **37** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]** **38** **[ Mat.Appeal.208/2017, OP (FC).148/2017, OP (FC).429/2017 ]**