IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 562 of 2007()
1. BALAN, S/O. SANKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BABY GIRIJA, D/O. VASU,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
For Respondent :SMT.K.KUSUMAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :04/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.
=====================
Mat.Appeal No.562 of 2007
=====================
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
The appellant-petitioner filed an application for injunction
restraining the respondent from evicting him from 25 cents of
land and a shop room thereon. The respondent is the wife of the
appellant. They had two daughters. The disputes arose between
the husband and wife and the matter was settled. As a result of
this, the above land and the shop room were gifted by the
respondent – wife to her eldest daughter. The appellant also
gifted some property to another daughter and also agreed to live
together. The petition schedule property was originally owned by
the father of the respondent-wife, which was gifted to her and
she was the owner and she executed a deed in favour of her
eldest daughter. However, in the deed there was a provision that
the appellant has got right to continue his possession and
enjoyment over the petition schedule property along with the
Mat Appeal No.562/07 -: 2 :-
respondent. But subsequently disputes arose and that the claim
was covered by Ext.B2.
2. The contention of the appellant is that Ext.B2 revocation
cannot be acted upon. But it is the admitted fact that the
petition schedule building was originally owned by the respondent
and it was gifted to her daughter. Ext.A1 is the copy of the
licence to possess explosives for own use. But that will not show
that he has license in 2001 and that he was in possession of the
building or that he was running any shop in the building. The
owner of the building was not made a party. Therefore, the
Family Court Judge held as follows:
“16. The only question to be considered is,
whether the petitioner is entitled to get an injunction
restraining the respondent from forcibly evicting him
from the petition schedule shop rooms and from
obstructing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the scheduled property. As earlier pointed out, in
view of Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 the petitioner has
absolutely no right over the petition schedule
property and the shop building situated therein. The
property belongs to his daughter who is not a party
in this case. There is no clear evidence to show that
Mat Appeal No.562/07 -: 3 :-
he was actually in occupation of the building at the
time of filing the O.P. The apprehension of the
petitioner is that he would be forcibly evicted from
the petition schedule shop room. As earlier
indicated since the petitioner is not having any right
or possession over the petition schedule property, he
cannot seek any injunction against the respondent.
Hence I find that the prayer for injunction is to be
disallowed. Point found accordingly.”
3. We fully agree with the above findings. The petitioner
was never the owner of the building and in possession of the
building. The petitioner and the respondent are not in cordial
terms and the gift deed itself was executed for settling their
disputes. The petitioner was not able to convince that he has got
any right in the shop building.
Since we fully agree with the views of the Family Court, we
dismiss the appeal.
J.B.Koshy,
Judge.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 5/6