High Court Kerala High Court

Smt.Shirliness vs Smt.Simmy on 3 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
Smt.Shirliness vs Smt.Simmy on 3 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr.Appeal(C).No. 1 of 2008()


1. SMT.SHIRLINESS, W/O.LATE BHASKARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SMT.SIMMY, D/O.MRS.OMANA, RESIDING AT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY

                For Respondent  :SRI.G.BIJU

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :03/03/2009

 O R D E R
      KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
             ------------------------------------------
                Transfer Appeal No.1 OF 2008
             ------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009.


                         J U D G M E N T

Kurian Joseph, J.

Petitioner in Transfer Petition(C) No.192 of 2007 is the

appellant. Petitioner approached this Court praying for transfer

of O.S.No.118/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal to

Family Court, Kollam to be tried along with O.S.No.259/2006.

The petitioner is the wife of deceased Bhaskaran and the

defendant is his niece. The defendant is the plaintiff in the suit

before the Sub Court, Attingal. The parties claimed right and title

under two different Wills alleged to have been executed by

deceased Bhaskaran.

2. It is the contention of the appellant that the Family

Court has jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 7(1)

explanation (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. But, we are afraid

whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to try the suit instituted

Tr.Appeal No.1/2008 2

by the respondent-niece-plaintiff in O.S.No.118/2006 on the file

of Sub Court, Attingal. The fact remains that the crucial issue to

be decided in both cases relates to interpretation of Will/Wills

said to have been executed by deceased Bhaskaran. We are also

of the view that it is too early for the learned Single Judge to

make an observation in the order under appeal that the Family

Court does not have jurisdiction.

3. Be that as it may, in the nature of the order we propose

to pass in this appeal, it is not necessary for this Court to decide

those issues finally. O.S.No.118/2006 is the suit first pertaining

to the subject matter. That suit is pending before the Sub Court,

Attingal. The Sub Court had passed an order of injunction.

During the pendency of the said suit only, O.S.No.259/2006 on

the file of Family Court, Kollam was filed.

4. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the

pendency of civil suit before the Civil Court was suppressed

before the Family Court. Whatever that be, since

O.S.No.118/2006 is the suit instituted earlier in point of time, we

feel that the said suit should be tried by the Sub Court, Attingal

Tr.Appeal No.1/2008 3

first and till such time further proceedings in O.S.No.259/2006 on

the file of the Family Court, Kollam should be stayed.

Accordingly, the Transfer Appeal is disposed of as follows:

There will be a direction to the Sub Court, Attingal to

dispose of O.S.No.118/2006, expeditiously. Till the suit is

disposed of, there will be a stay of all further proceedings, under

Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in O.S.No.259/2006 on

the file of the Family Court, Kollam.

KURIAN JOSEPH
JUDGE

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE

smp

Tr.Appeal No.1/2008 4

KURIAN JOSEPH &
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.

Tr. Appeal No. 1 OF 2008

J U D G M E N T

03.03.2009