IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 AS.No. 123 of 1997(E) --------------------- O.S.NO.704/94 OF 1ST ADDL. SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT: 3RD DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------- V.HARIHARAN, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN MANIKULANGARA HOUSE NEAR POLICE STATION, THRIKKAKARA KAKANAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF 1ST & 2ND DEFNDANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INDIAN BANK, M.G.ROAD BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY CHIEF OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHIBU, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.HARIHARAN NOW RESIDING AT MANIKULANGARA HOUSE KAKKANAD P.O. 3. JISHA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.HARIHARAN -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.E.SUBRAMANI FOR R1 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------- A.S.No.123 of 1997 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard. Admitted. Advocate S.Easwaran takes notice for the first respondent bank. Notice to the respondents 2 and 3 dispensed with as no relief is sought against them in this appeal. 2. The deceased M.S.Malathi borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff bank. After borrowing the amount she died. The bank filed a suit against the defendants alleging that the appellant is the husband of the deceased Malathi and respondents 2 and 3 are the children born to them in their wedlock. The appellant contended that though he married Malathi in the year 1981, they divorced by mutual consent and are living separately. He also contended that after divorce, he married another lady and living with her and he has nothing to do with the assets of Malathi. After trial, the trial court passed a decree allowing the plaintiff by executing the sale against the assets of deceased Malathi inherited by the appellant. The appellant contended that the trial court went wrong in passing a decree against him. The apprehension of the appellant is without A.S.NO.123/97 2 any basis. No personal decree was passed against the appellant. His separate properties are also not made liable for the decree debt. The court below made it clear that the appellant and other defendants are liable for the plaint claim out of the properties left behind by deceased Malathi and to the extent of the properties inherited by him. So the relief granted was only against the properties of deceased Malathi. Since no personal decree is passed against the appellant he can have no grievance. Though the appellant had raised a contention that the suit was barred by limitation the trial court after considering the pleadings and evidence found that the suit was filed within time. So, I do not find any reason to admit this appeal which was actually filed 11 years back. So the appeal is only to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE csl