IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15838 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.1465/2008 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RAJAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O.ADATHI VEETTIL VELAYUDHAN, SREEKRISHNAPADAM, SHINE ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 19. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT: --------------- KRISHNAN, AGED 73 YEARS, VARIYATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, WADAKANCHERY P.O., THRISSUR DIST. ADV. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF INJUNCTION PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT DATED 20-10-2008. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 277/09 IN O.P.NO.1465/2008 DATED 17-1-2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 277/09 IN OP NO. 1465/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 17-2-2009. RESPONDENTS EXTS: EXT.R1(A): TRUEN COPY OF LETTER DT. 3-11-2008 OF DR.C.P.KARUINADAS, ASST.PROFESSOR, DEPT. OF CARDIOLOGY, GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR TO DR. PRASANNAKUMAR. EXT.R1(B): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 7-12-08 FROM DR.RAJESH THACHATHODIYIL, CARIOLOGIST, AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEKDICAL SCIENSES, KOCHI. EXT.R1(C)TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25-2-09 ISSUED BY DR. RUPESH GEORGE. EXT.R1(D)TRUE COPY FO THE PLAINT BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR AS O.S.NO.319/08 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(E) TRUE COPHY FO O.P.NO,.1465/0-8 FILED BY THE EPTITIONER DATED 20- 10-2008. EXT.R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28-10-08 ISSUED FROM THE cOCHIN CO-OP.AGRI.& RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. EXT.R1(G) THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE VOTERS LISTS OF THE YEAR 1983 OF WADAKKANCHERRY ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY. EXT.R1(H) TRUE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE VOTERS LIST OF THE YEAR 2007 OF WADAKKANCHERRY ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY. EXT.R1(I): TRUE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE RATION CARD NO.ARD NO. 124 OF THE PETITIONER. KS. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15838 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The petitioner is the petitioner in O.P.No.1465/08 pending before the Family Court, Thrissur. She has claimed half rights over a property which now stands exclusively in the name of the respondent herein. It is her case that though the property stands in the name of her husband, the respondent herein, actually and really, both spouses have half rights over that property. According to her, ample evidence has been produced by her to substantiate her contention that she has spent money and contributed the purchase price using which the acquisition was made. She wanted her half rights to be declared in the property. Along with the petition, an interim application was filed to restrain the respondent from the disposing of the petition schedule property. That petition was initially allowed and a direction was issued to the respondent to maintain status quo in respect of the property. W.P.(C)No.15838/09 -2- 2. Later on, the respondent went before the Family Court and prayed that the order of status quo may be vacated. According to him, he is a person aged 73 years. There is urgent necessity for him to undergo a heart surgery. He does not have funds for that surgery. In these circumstances, he prayed that half rights of his about which there is no dispute at all may be permitted to be sold. By the impugned order, the court below precisely granted that permission. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Even if they were to ultimately succeed in the suit, she could not have claimed anything more than half rights in the property. Her half rights in the property is adequately secured by the impugned order in Exhibit P3. The respondent has been permitted only to sell half rights over the property in question. Any one who purchases the property and any alienation pending disposal of the suit will be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. In these circumstances, we find absolutely no reason to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. W.P.(C)No.15838/09 -3- We, by way of abundant caution, again direct that the respondent must notify the willing purchaser of his undisputed half rights about the pendency of O.P.No.1465/08 and the document of assignment must specifically refer to the permission granted to the petitioner under Exhibit P3 order which is modified and clarified by this order. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observation. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn