The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the appellants to return gold ornaments or pay their market value, as well as the court's discretion to grant alternative relief in the absence of a specific prayer for it.

JUDGMENT :

Sophy Thomas, J.

The appellants herein are the respondents in O.P.No.1806 of 2011 on the file of Family Court, Nedumangad. The respondent/wife filed that O.P. for recovery of gold ornaments and movables entrusted with the appellants and also to get back the documents of her property, which was given as security for a loan availed by the 3rd appellant-mother-in-law.

2. The 1st appellant husband had filed O.P.No.688 of 2011 for dissolving his marriage with the respondent. That O.P. was tried jointly with O.P.No.1806 of 2011 and a common judgment was passed on 25.06.2013 granting a decree of divorce in O.P.No.688 of 2011 in favour of the 1st appellant, and partly allowing O.P.No.1806 of 2011 directing the appellants to return 130 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent-wife, or to pay its market value as on the date of realization, and to return the original title documents of the respondent to her after discharging the liability of the 3rd appellant with KSFE, Vellarada Branch. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P.No.1806 of 2011, this appeal has been preferred by the respondents therein.

3. The case put forward by the respondent/wife in O.P.No.1806 of 2011 was that she was given 130 sovereigns of gold ornaments, movables worth Rs.50,000/- and also landed property extending 91.99 Ares with a two storied building, as her paternal share, at the time of marriage. After 2 weeks of marriage, her entire gold ornaments were received by appellants 1 and 2 i.e., her husband and father-in-law. According to her, they were in the habit of pledging and redeeming her gold ornaments. When she had to attend some functions, they used to give some of her ornaments, but immediately after attending the function, they used to get it back from her. The movables/household articles worth Rs.50,000/- given from her family were also entrusted with the appellants. In order to secure a loan availed by the 3rd appellant from KSFE, Vellarada Branch, the title deeds of the respondent were given as security, and she wanted to get back those documents, on clearing the loan liability by the 3rd appellant.

4. The appellants flatly denied the allegations of entrustment of the gold ornaments, movables as well as the title documents of the respondent. The parties went on trial by examining PWs.1 to 8 and marking Exts.A1 to A17 from the part of appellants, CPWs.1 to 5 and Exts.B1 to B11 from the side of the respondent and Exts.X1 to X14 as witness Exhibits and Ext.C1 as Court Exhibit. After analysing the facts and evidence, the Family Court found that the respondents/appellants are liable to return 130 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value, and also the original title documents of the petitioner/wife.

5. Though, the 1st appellant-husband denied entrustment of title deeds of the respondent, appellants 2 and 3 had admitted in their counter that the respondent had voluntarily given her title documents as security for receiving the kuri amount of Rs.10 lakh in Chitty No.6/2008 subscribed by the 3rd appellant in KSFE, and that amount was fully paid of in September, 2011.

6. CPW4, the Assistant Manager of KSFE, Vellarada Branch, produced Ext.X2 series original title deeds of the respondent, before the Family Court. His evidence is to the effect that Ext.X2 series title deeds of the respondent was produced as security to chitty Nos.6/2008, 16/2007 and 14/2006. Chitty Nos.6/2008 and 16/2007 were subscribed by the 3rd appellant and Chitty No.14/2006 was subscribed by the respondent as stated by him. His testimony further shows that Chitty No.6/2008 and 16/2007 were already closed clearing the liabilities. So, the title document of the respondent is no more needed as far as the liability of the 3rd appellant is concerned with respect to Chitty Nos.6/2008 and 16/2007. But the liability of the respondent with respect to Chitty No.14/2006 is yet to be cleared and according to CPW4, the original documents could be returned to the respondent on clearing