IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 562 of 2007() ---------------------------------------- OP.582/2001 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT (PETITIONER); --------------------- BALAN, S/O. SANKARAN, MERCHANT, RESIDENT OF D.R.B. NIVAS,MURUKKUMPUZHA, MUNDAKKAL MURI, VELLOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: (RESPONDENT): -------------------------- BABY GIRIJA, D/O. VASU, PANOOR VEEDU, MURUKKUMPUZHA, MUNDAKKAL MURI, VELLOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM TALUK,TRIVANDRUM DIST. BY ADV. SMT.K.KUSUMAM - R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== Mat.Appeal No.562 of 2007 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy,J. The appellant-petitioner filed an application for injunction restraining the respondent from evicting him from 25 cents of land and a shop room thereon. The respondent is the wife of the appellant. They had two daughters. The disputes arose between the husband and wife and the matter was settled. As a result of this, the above land and the shop room were gifted by the respondent - wife to her eldest daughter. The appellant also gifted some property to another daughter and also agreed to live together. The petition schedule property was originally owned by the father of the respondent-wife, which was gifted to her and she was the owner and she executed a deed in favour of her eldest daughter. However, in the deed there was a provision that the appellant has got right to continue his possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property along with the Mat Appeal No.562/07 -: 2 :- respondent. But subsequently disputes arose and that the claim was covered by Ext.B2. 2. The contention of the appellant is that Ext.B2 revocation cannot be acted upon. But it is the admitted fact that the petition schedule building was originally owned by the respondent and it was gifted to her daughter. Ext.A1 is the copy of the licence to possess explosives for own use. But that will not show that he has license in 2001 and that he was in possession of the building or that he was running any shop in the building. The owner of the building was not made a party. Therefore, the Family Court Judge held as follows: "16. The only question to be considered is, whether the petitioner is entitled to get an injunction restraining the respondent from forcibly evicting him from the petition schedule shop rooms and from obstructing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property. As earlier pointed out, in view of Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 the petitioner has absolutely no right over the petition schedule property and the shop building situated therein. The property belongs to his daughter who is not a party in this case. There is no clear evidence to show that Mat Appeal No.562/07 -: 3 :- he was actually in occupation of the building at the time of filing the O.P. The apprehension of the petitioner is that he would be forcibly evicted from the petition schedule shop room. As earlier indicated since the petitioner is not having any right or possession over the petition schedule property, he cannot seek any injunction against the respondent. Hence I find that the prayer for injunction is to be disallowed. Point found accordingly." 3. We fully agree with the above findings. The petitioner was never the owner of the building and in possession of the building. The petitioner and the respondent are not in cordial terms and the gift deed itself was executed for settling their disputes. The petitioner was not able to convince that he has got any right in the shop building. Since we fully agree with the views of the Family Court, we dismiss the appeal. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 5/6