Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12711
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
VINOD – Appellant
Versus
SOUMYA – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 597 2013
The court affirmed the principle of unjust enrichment and the availability of alternative relief in claims involving movable property under Family Law.
Headnote:
Property - Family Law - Family Court Act Section [Various] - The court directed the return of gold ornaments or their market value, interpreting provisions related to movable property and alternative relief under CPC, highlighting unjust enrichment principles.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought recovery of gold ornaments and property documents, alleging they were entrusted to the appellants, who denied this. The Family Court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the return of the ornaments or their market value.
Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to recover the gold ornaments and property documents, and if the appellants were unjustly enriched by retaining the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the respondent's claim was substantiated by evidence of entrustment and the provisions of the Family Law and CPC permitted alternative relief, allowing for the payment of the market value of the ornaments.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, directing the return of 45.85 sovereigns of gold or their current market value.
J U D G M E N T
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
