Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 967 (KER)

Vimala v. Aramughan @ Subramanian

2024-08-01

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B.SNEHALATHA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner assails Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, Tirur, whereby, the request of the respondent – her estranged husband, to lift the attachment of certain portions of his property, has been allowed, finding that its total value will be much more than the claimed amount. 2. Sri. Sunil V. Mohammed – learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court had erroneously accepted the value of the property determined by the Kerala Gramin Bank, at the time when a loan was sought to be taken against it. He argued that this value is totally unreasonable and exorbitant; and that this is possibly because, the valuation of the property was done by a private valuer. He argued that, in any event, without the said valuer being called as a witness and without him having been examined, the Trial Court could not have accepted the value fixed by him. He thus prayed that Ext.P10 be set aside. 3. In response, Sri. Jamshid Hafiz – learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that this Original Petition is only a method by the petitioner-wife to harass the respondent husband and force him to untenable settlement. He argued that the learned Trial Court has correctly found that the valuation report by a valuer attached to the Kerala Gramin Bank shows that there are 2 extents of property, namely 9 cents and 11.42 cents; and that the value of the latter is Rs.58,82,150/-. He added that, in fact, the value of this property is perhaps even higher because it has a building thereon; but that the petitioner is attempting to proceed against the other 9 cents also, for reasons that are confutative. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P10 be left uninterdicted. 4. We have examined Ext.P10, which is the order impugned, on the touchstone of the above rival submissions of the parties. 5. As rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Family Court, Tirur has accepted the valuation of the valuer attached to the Kerala Gramin Bank, to hold that the value of 11.42 cents is Rs.58,82,150/-. It has then recorded that “there is nothing on record to reject the valuation”; but we do not see from the order as to in what manner this valuation was sought to be impeached, or supported, by the rival parties. It has then recorded that “there is nothing on record to reject the valuation”; but we do not see from the order as to in what manner this valuation was sought to be impeached, or supported, by the rival parties. We notice that the learned Family Court has accepted the valuation even without evidence being led; and in such perspective, we are afraid that we cannot grant approval to it, at least at the first instance. 6. When the respondent had approached the learned Trial Court, Tirur, for freeing certain portions of his property from interim attachment, obviously, it was for him to establish the value of the balance property and to show that it covers the claimed amount, if not more. As we have already said above, for this, the learned Court relied upon a valuation by a valuer attached to the Kerala Gramin Bank; but his credentials, or competence, has not been even whisperingly stated in Ext.P10 order. 7. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the matter will require to be reconsidered by the learned Family Court, Tirur, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides. We, however, clarify that we have not concluded that the value of 11.42 cents is lesser or more than the one now found by the learned Family Court; but only that it requires to be established through an established process of law. 8. In summation, we allow this Original Petition and set aside Ext.P10; with a consequential direction to the learned Family Court, Tirur, to reconsider I.A.No.3 of 2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.P.No.1198 of 2023, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. For reiterated clarity, we record that we have not considered the merits of any of the rival contentions, except for the purpose of this judgment and that all of them are left open, including as to the manner of valuation of the property and the assessment of its value, in terms of law.