The civil court has jurisdiction over suits based on contractual agreements between parties to a marriage, as established under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2024 This Regular Second Appeal originally filed along with C.M.C.P.No.20/2021, arises out of decree and judgment in A.S.No.4/2017 on the files of the District Court, Kasaragod, whereby, the learned District Judge confirmed the decree and judgment in O.S.No.386/2015, dated 14.11.2016 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod. Defendant is the appellant herein and plaintiff is the respondent herein.

2. As per order, dated 3.1.2024, C.M.C.P.No.20/2021 allowed and the appellant was permitted to proceed this appeal, as an indigent person, though he has immovable property.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendant’, for convenience.

5. The plaintiff, who is the father of the wife of the defendant, instituted the suit, claiming 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments alleged to be given by him to his daughter at the time of marriage between the daughter and the defendant. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the marriage between the defendant and the daughter of the plaintiff was solemnized on 30.5.2011 and thereafter, the daughter of the plaintiff committed suicide on 25.5.2014. Since the defendant swallowed 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments, entrusted by the plaintiff to his daughter at the time of marriage, during the period of their joint residence, on demand, the defendant executed an agreement on 28.6.2014, agreeing to return 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments taken by the defendant, in three installments. It was agreed to return 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments within 2 months from the date of the agreement, 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments within 6 months from the date of the agreement and the remaining 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments within one year from the date of agreement. Since the defendant failed to perform the contractual obligations, the present suit was filed after issuing legal notice of demand.

6. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. The execution of the agreement was denied by the defendant. The consideration set forth in the agreement also was denied. Entrustment of 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the daughter of the plaintiff and its misappropriation by the defendant also were denied. Question regarding jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the matter also was raised.

7. The trial court raised necessary issues including one of jurisdiction and finally found on evidence confined to that of PW1 to PW3 and Exts.A1 to A4 on the side of the plaintiff as well as DW1 on the side of the defendant that, since the suit is one based on an agreement, civil court has jurisdiction. On finding that execution of Ext.A1 stood proved, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit as under:

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs as follows:

1. The defendant is directed to return 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the plaintiff on or before 15.1.2017.

2. In case, if the defendant fails to return the gold ornaments within the time prescribed, he shall pay an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as the value of gold ornaments with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of suit till the date of realisation of the amount.

3. If the amount is not been paid on or before 15-012017, the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree executed through due process of law.

4. Defendant to do pay the costs of this suit.

8. Although appeal filed, challenging the verdict of the Munsiff Court before the District Court, Kasaragod. The learned District Judge re-appreciated the evidence including the question of jurisdiction and concurred the finding of the trial court.

9. The learned counsel for the defendant reiterated question of jurisdiction and also disputed the genuineness of Ext.A1