Point of Law: Words used in decree are present value. Present indicates "current point of time".

JUDGMENT :

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

Ext.P8 is the order dated 06.12.2021 of the Family Court, Kollam in E.A.No.101 of 2021 in E.P.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.230 of 2003. The petitioners have filed the said execution application seeking to dismiss the execution petition as not maintainable. The Family Court dismissed that application. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. On 12.01.2022, this Original Petition was admitted and notice was directed to be served on the respondents. Operation of the judgment in O.S.No.230 of 2003 was stayed, to the extent it relates to the recovery of value of the gold ornaments on the condition of deposit of Rs.3,60,000/-within a period of two weeks.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. O.S.No.230 of 2003 was decreed in part as per the judgment dated 15.03.2011. The decree reads,-

“In the result, the suit is partly decreed directing the defendants to return 68.937 sovereigns of gold ornaments or the present value of same, to the 1st plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of suit till the date of decree with future interest at the rate of 6% till realisation to the 1st plaintiff. The defendants are directed to return the C-scheduled movables or Rs.31,350/-the value of the same to the 1st plaintiff, in default 1st plaintiff is allowed to realise the decree amount from the defendants and their properties.”

5. The petitioners appealed in Mat.Appeal No.571 of 2011. This Court modified the said decree as per the judgment dated 26.08.2019 in the appeal. The appellate decree reads,-

“In the result, this Matrimonial appeal is allowed in part as indicated hereinbelow:-

1. Interest is reduced to 6% from the date of decree till the date of realisation.

2. The liabilities of the defendants 2 and 3/ appellants 2 and 3 are limited to 50% of the decree amount with interest and costs and the rest lies with the first defendant.

3. The return of C-scheduled movables or Rs.31,350/-as value of the same to the plaintiffs stand declined.

4. Regarding all other aspects, the decree of the court below stands confirmed.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.”

6. The petitioners have filed E.A.No.101 of 2021 requiring the court to dismiss the Execution Petition as not maintainable. The reasons stated was that the respondents-decree holders claimed value of the gold as on the date of filing of the E.P.; whereas the decree allowed the value of the gold ornaments as on the date of filing of the suit. The Family Court considered the said contention and also the objection of the respondents in Ext.P7 and held that execution petition was maintainable. The Family Court observed that the appellate decree allows the respondent-decree holder to realise the present market value of the gold ornaments and therefore the claim in the Execution Petition is allowable.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the very claim of the respondents in O.S.No.230 of 2003 was to return either the gold ornaments or its value of Rs.3,60,000/-, and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to claim any amount in excess of Rs.3,60,000/-. The contention of the learned counsel is that a claim for more than Rs.3,60,000/-as the value of the gold ornaments is against the decree and the Execution Court has no jurisdiction to enforce such a claim.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing reliance on the decisions in William David v. Linu Mary George [2010 (4) KLT 691], Thomas M.Varghese v. Sonia Susan Thomas [2014 (3) KLT 487] and Syamini S. Nair and others v. Sreekanth R. [2022 (3) KHC 145] contended that the Execution Court has no authority to go beyond the decree, although the trial court can order payment of value as an alternative to the decree directi