JUDGMENT

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioners in O.P.No.381 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram have filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They challenge Ext.P6 order insofar as it lifts the attachment in respect of item Nos.6 and 7 properties in the schedule attached to I.A.No.2 of 2022 in that O.P.

2. As per order dated 12.10.2022, parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of Ext.P6 order for a period of one month. The interim order was extended subsequently.

3. Pursuant to notice the respondents entered appearance through their learned counsel.

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

5. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 1st respondent.

The 2nd petitioner is their minor child. Following marital discord, the petitioners have filed O.P.No.381 of 2022 seeking realisation of a sum of Rs.62,87,200/- towards past maintenance, value of gold ornaments and movables, hospital expenses, etc. Ext.P1 is a copy of the said original petition. The petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 in that O.P. seeking attachment of the immovable properties, which comprised seven items. Attachment before judgment was ordered. The respondents filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 seeking to lift attachment in respect of item Nos.6 and 7 properties. Ext.P3 is a copy of the said petition. The respondents have produced a valuation certificate in respect of item No.3 property, which is Ext.P4. The petitioners resisted I.A.No.3 of 2022 by filing a counter, a copy of which is Ext.P5. The Family Court, after hearing both sides, rendered Ext.P6 common order by which I.A.No.3 of 2022 and also I.A.Nos.4 and 7 of 2022 were disposed of. Attachment in respect of item Nos.6 and 7 properties was removed. The petitioners are aggrieved by that part of the common order. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Ext.P4 is not a valid document, on which reliance could be placed and considering the amount to be realised in O.P.No.381 of 2022, the Family Court ought not to have allowed I.A.No.3 of 2022. The learned counsel further contended that without assigning any valid reason, I.A.No.3 of

2022 was allowed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that each item of the properties scheduled to I.A.No.2 of 2022 is valuable and item No.3 alone is enough to satisfy the claim of the petitioners. It is pointed out that the respondents are not the absolute owners of item Nos.6 and 7 properties, but other legal representatives of the father, the predecessor-in-interest, also have share in the property and the order of attachment in respect of the property of strangers, at any rate, should not have been made.

8. Ext.P2 is a copy of I.A.No.2 of 2022. Item No.1 in the schedule is 3.23 Ares of land, item No.2 is 8.617, item No.3 is 10.932 Ares equivalent to 27 cents with an apartment complex, item No.4 is 33.3 Ares equivalent to 82¼ cents of land and item No.5 is 10.61 Ares. The respondents have only 3/13 share in item Nos.4 and 5. When attachment in respect of item Nos.6 and 7 properties is lifted as per Ext.P6 order, what remains is the attachment relating to item Nos.1 to 5. The case of the petitioners is that those five items of properties are not enough to satisfy the claim of Rs.62,87,200/- in the original petition.

9. Ext.P4 is a certificate issued under Section 28C of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The land and building are valued as per Ext.P4. It is true that valuation in Ext.P4 is not intended to be used as evidence in a court of law. But it cannot be said that such a document has no relevance or evidentiary value. For the purpose of levying stamp duty, the procedure for valuation is provided under the Kerala Stamp Act. Such a valuation report can certainly be used in proceedings in court.

10. 10.93 Ares equivalent to 27 cents along with a building having an area of 8612 sq.m. is item numb