IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 391 of 2010() ---------------------------- OP.1166/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------- 1. K.AZEEZ, S/O.HYDRU, AGED 40 YEARS, KANNICHALIL, THACHAMPARA AMSOM, MANNARCAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. HYDRU, AGED 69, S/O.KUNJAPPU, KANNICHALIL, THACHAMPARA AMSOM, MANNARCAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, (IST APPELLANT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THE 2ND RESPONDENT). BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T) SMT.K.V.RESHMI SRI.M.N.SANDEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- E.A.THASNEEM, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.E.A.ALIKHAN, RESIDING AT JAMINE VILLA, CHELANKARA, POOKKUNNU DESOM, MANNARCAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Application No.1105 of 2010 & Mat.Appeal No.391 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June 2010 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J This application is to condone the enormous delay of 522 days in filing a Mat.Appeal. The appeal, in turn, is directed against an order in favour of the appellant herein. The appellant is the husband of the petitioner in the O.P. There is an acquisition of property in the joint names of the husband and wife. The wife came to court with the suit praying for a declaration that the property belongs to her entirely and exclusively and for an injunction restraining the husband from entering into the property. That suit was dismissed. In the impugned order, the court below observed thus in paragraph13 against point No.3. “I do not mean to say that the plaintiff did not contribute anything. What is meant is only that there is no evidence to find that every contribution was that of the plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot be considered as the sole owner of the plaint schedule property. She can be considered only as a co-owner.” C.M.Appl.No.1105/10 & M.A No.391/10 : 2 : 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by these observations in the judgment in the litigation which he has succeeded. The document shows that the property is in the joint name of two persons. One of them claimed that she is the exclusive owner. That suit was dismissed. We fail to understand how the other, the appellant herein, can take objections against these observations. 3. Did the appellant filed a counter claim? Admittedly, no valid counter claim was raised before the court below. That relief, though attempted to be claimed, was not pressed, it is evident. To say the least, we are not, in any way, persuaded to agree that the appellant has any cause of action to complain of. He cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 4. This application for condonation of delay and the Mat.Appeal are both hence dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge C.M.Appl.No.1105/10 & M.A No.391/10 : 3 : C.M.Appl.No.1105/10 & M.A No.391/10 : 4 : C.M.Appl.No.1105/10 & M.A No.391/10 : 5 : R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009