IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 RFA.No. 217 of 2006(D) ---------------------- OS.13/2004 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT:DEFENDANT NO.1: ------------------------------------------------ N.P.SHYLAJA, AGED 41, D/O.M.P.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, NAMBRADATH HOUSE, MADAI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, P.O.MUTTAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VATAKKANMAR VEETTIL RADHAKRISHNAN,AGED 46, S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,CHERUTHAZHAM VILLAGE,SREE- P.O.SREESTHA, (VIA) PAYANGADI,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 51,S/O.CHANDRUKUTTY NAIR, TRICHAMBARAM,TALIPARAMBA.P.O. 2. K.C.RAGHUNATH, 34 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, P.O. EZHILODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. P.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 29, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, KOVVAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. MANAGER, L.I.C. HOUSING FINANCE LTD., AREA OFFICE, ROYAL PALACE BUILDING, RAILWAY STATION LINK ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.E.V.NAYANAR, SMT.VIDHYA. A.C., SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN. R4 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------- R.F.A. No. 217 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. This appeal arises from a suit filed before the Payyanur Sub Court on 22.01.2004. The plaintiff and the first defendant were husband and wife. Marriage stands dissolved. The plaintiff filed a suit for certain claims in relation to an item of property standing in the name of the first defendant. In fact, the claim is for amounts is stated to have been spent by the plaintiff towards paying off portion of a housing loan and another claim is based on the plea of having satisfied certain holders of a decree against the first defendant. Essentially, therefore, it is a matter that falls within the provisions of the Family Courts Act. Hence in terms of Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court, Kannur which came to be established with effect from 7th June, 2003 alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, following R.F.A. No. 217 of 2006 2 the judgment in Seema v. Jayagopal (2010 (3) KLT 878), the impugned decree and judgment are set aside and the case is remanded to the court below (Sub Court, Payyanur) with a direction to return the plaint from that Court in accordance with law. Since this order of remand is being made on the ground that the court below lacked competence to try the suit, we order refund of the whole court fee paid on this memorandum of appeal. Parties will bear their own costs in this appeal. Parties to enter appearance before the court below on 14-03-2011. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. rkc