K. T. Paulose v. Molly and Anugibi

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. Chitambaresh
Judgment Date: 2014-07-02
Court Decision / Holding: The Original Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Original Petition dismissed; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. T. Paulose

Respondents

Molly
Anugibi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R. D. Shenoy (Sr.)
• S. Vinod Bhat
• Legith T. Kotakkal

Counsels for Respondents

• A. C. Thomas Adhikaram
• M. S. Unnikrishnan
• Jayasree Manoj
• Jithin Paul Varghese

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in OP(C).No. 230 of 2014 (O), heard a challenge to the Sub Court of Perumbavoor’s order in OS 119/2013. The petitioner, K. T. Paulose, a 71-year-old dentist, seeks a declaration of title to the plaint schedule property — a non-residential premises housing his dental clinic — and relief to set aside a settlement deed executed by his wife, the first defendant, in favour of their daughter, the second defendant. The pleadings allege that the property was purchased in the first defendant’s name as a trustee for the plaintiff, who paid the entire price, and that the first defendant held it in a fiduciary relationship. The lis is between spouses, with the daughter joined to bind her via decree. The court holds that, under Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, such a suit must be tried by a Family Court. Relying on Shini v. George and Vasumathi v. Valsan, the court explains that the mere presence of a third party cannot oust Family Court jurisdiction and that the case must be viewed through the lens of a dispute between the parties to the marriage. Consequently, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable, and the plaint is to be transferred to the Family Court within two weeks, with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 7(1)(c)Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 7(1)(d)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Purposive interpretation of statutes (Vasumathi v. Valsan)
Jurisdiction to be decided on the basis of averments in the plaint alone
Disputes between parties to a marriage fall under Family Court jurisdiction
Fiduciary relationship (trustee-relationship in property ownership)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner asserts that the plaint schedule property belongs to him in reality, though purchased in the first defendant’s name as trustee due to fiduciary ties; he paid the entire purchase price. He seeks a declaration of ownership and possession, along with setting aside of the settlement deed in favour of the second defendant and injunctive relief to prevent trespass or tenancy. He contends the dispute is essentially between the spouses, with the daughter joined only to bind her by decree, and that Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act requires the Family Court to adjudicate property disputes between parties to a marriage.

Contentions of Respondents

The document does not provide a detailed, explicit statement of the respondents’ pleadings or arguments. The order, however, relies on averments in the plaint and on jurisdictional principles to transfer the matter to the Family Court, indicating the respondents’ position focused on the propriety of maintaining the suit before the Family Court and on the implications of ownership and the need to adjudicate in the appropriate forum.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shini v. George and others	1997 (1) KLJ 573	Positive	Cited to support that suits between parties to a marriage concerning property must be tried by the Family Court and that mere presence of a stranger or relative does not oust jurisdiction.
Vasumathi v. Valsan	2011 (3) KLT 638	Positive	Division Bench’s purposive interpretation of Section 7(1)(c) and its application to cases where disputes are between parties to a marriage, even with other parties named; applied to the present case.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2014/11TH ASHADHA, 1936 OP(C).No. 230 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 119/2013 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR ## PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFF: ----------------- K.T.PAULOSE, AGED 71 YEARS DENTIST, S/O.LATE SHRI.THOMAS CHENNAKKATTU KALANKAMARI HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA AIKKARANAD NORTH VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.) SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL ## RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS: ------------------- 1. MOLLY, AGED 66 YEARS HOUSEWIFE, W/O.DR.K.T.PAULOSE CHENNAKKATTUKALANKAMARI HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU KARA AIKKARANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLENCHERRY-682311. 2. ANUGIBI, AGED 42 YEARS DENTIST, W/O.GIBI ABRAHAM, KOIKKARA VADAKKEN HOUSE CHITTANADU KARA, KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE KOLLENCHERRY-682311. R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.THOMAS ADHIKARAM R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 230 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 119/2013 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. - EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OS 119/2013 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. - EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DT.22-11-2013 FILED IN OS 119/2013 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. - EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS 119/2013 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. - EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4TH JANUARY 2014 IN OS 119/2013 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE 'A DIARY ENTRY' MADE WITH RESPECT TO OS 119/2013 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. ------------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE **==> picture [279 x 64] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [126 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** The petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.119/2013 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Perumbavoor is the husband. The first defendant in the suit is his wife and the second defendant is one of the daughters born in the wed-lock. The principal prayer in the suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the true owner in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The same is a non-residential premises where a dental clinic of the petitioner is housed. The second prayer in the suit is to set aside the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. Injunctive reliefs are also sought restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or otherwise inducting tenants therein. Para VIII of the plaint can be profitably extracted hereunder:- “The plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of the 1[st] Defendant as a TRUSTEE of the Plaintiff, as she enjoyed a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff. The entire purchase money was paid by the Plaintiff to O.P (C) No.230/2014 2 the vendor of the property viz. Sri.Ulahannan. It was so purchased because the plaintiff was the only child of his father - Sri.Thomas, who had about 19 acres of land as per Partition Deed No.813/1115 of Aikkaranad (Puthencruz) Sub Registry. During that period, State of Kerala was witnessing the implementation of the Land Reforms and therefore as an advance planning of the future, the plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of the 1[st] defendant, as a TRUSTEE of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property was registered in the name of the 1[st] defendant because she was the wife of the plaintiff who had a fiduciary relationship with him.” Thus the specific case of the plaintiff is that the property belongs to him even though it was purchased in the name of the first defendant with whom he enjoyed a fiduciary relationship. The second defendant was impleaded in the suit only to make the decree binding on her since the property had been transferred in her favour. The lis is essentially between the parties to the marriage with respect to the property of either of them. (Both the husband as well as the wife traces title to the plaint schedule property in themselves). 2. I have no doubt in my mind that the suit O.P (C) No.230/2014 3 will lie only in the Family Court in view of Section 7 (1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which is extracted hereunder:- 7 Jurisdiction - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall - (a) x x x x (b) x x x x (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them. This Court has in Shini v. George and others [1997 (1) KLJ 573] had occasion to observe as follows:- “5. When a wife sues her husband for recovery of her property or which she claim to be her property, obviously the suit could be tried and disposed of only by the Family Court and when in such a suit the wife is obliged to add a close relative or the husband or even a stranger on the allegation that the husband had made over the property to that close relative or to stranger, it will be too much to hold that the jurisdiction of the Family Court is ousted to deal with the claim of the plaintiff in view of the mere presence of the stranger or the close relative of the husband.” O.P (C) No.230/2014 4 Again a Division Bench of this Court in Vasumathi v. Valsan [2011 (3) KLT 638] considered the jurisdiction of the Family Court and observed as follows:- “20. ......Explanation (a) and (c) refer the parties to a marriage. Such disputes under (a) and (c) must be between the parties to the marriage. If the real dispute is between the parties to the marriage, the fact that there are other parties also arrayed in the suit is irrelevant. A party to a marriage cannot nullify the jurisdiction of the Family Court under explanation (c) by arraying one more party to the array of parties. According to us, their position in the array of parties is also not crucially relevant so long as the suit or proceedings in substance and in its core is between the parties. Application of clause (C) cannot be decided in a myopic manner by ascertaining the position of the parties on the array. They may be on opposite sides or may be together on one side on the array, but the suit or proceedings does not lose its character as one “between the parties” because they happen to be arrayed together on one side on the array. In a dispute like the one in this case, merely because the dispute between the parties is brought before the Court by another mercenary or name lender to O.P (C) No.230/2014 5 one of the spouses, the suit or proceedings cannot lose its character as one between the parties to the marriage. A purposive interpretation is warranted and when so reckoned, the position in the party array cannot be given undue importance. A suit/proceedings does not lose its essential character as one between parties merely because that proceedings is initiated by a name lender to one of the parties who on his own showing has no dispute with one of the spouses.” The above decision though rendered in the context of Section 7(1)(d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 applies on all fours to the present case falling under Section 7(1)(c) as well. 3. It is trite law that the jurisdiction of the court is decided on the basis of the averments in the plaint alone. The plaintiff (husband) asserts that the plaint schedule property belongs to him exclusively though purchased in the name of the first defendant (wife). The second defendant (daughter) has been impleaded as an eo-nominee party in order to make the decree binding on her. The contention that the second respondent is the ostensible owner of the property as O.P (C) No.230/2014 6 on the date of the suit has little relevance in deciding the question. The court of the Subordinate Judge was fully justified in returning the plaint to be presented before the Family Court having jurisdiction. 5. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order impugned warranting interference in this supervisory jurisdiction. The plaint on being represented to the Family Court within a period of two weeks from today shall be proceeded with in accordance with law. The Original Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Sd/V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.