Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Neethu vs Sunil on 13 October, 2023

                                                           1

                                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.      OF 2023
                                  (arising out of SLP(C) No. 2526 OF 2022)


     NEETHU                                                                  APPELLANT

                                                         VERSUS

     SUNIL & ORS.                                                            RESPONDENTS


                                                   O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have considered the affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 – Sunil, who claims that his monthly income is Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). We have also considered the judgment of the trial court as well as the first appellate court. The first appellate court substantially affirms the judgment of the trial court to the extent that 87 sovereigns/gold ornaments were handed over/given at the time of marriage between the appellant – Neethu and respondent no. 1 - Sunil.

It is the claim of respondent no. 2 – Lohitakshan, who is the father of respondent no. 1 – Sunil, that respondent no. 1 – Sunil had kept the jewellery/87 sovereigns in the bank locker, is an admission. The 87 sovereigns/ gold ornaments have not been returned to the appellant – Neethu.

Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2023.10.17 It is also a fact that respondent no. 1 – Sunil and respondent 17:43:17 IST Reason: no. 2 – Lohitakshan are residing in the same property. The stand of respondent no.1- Sunil is that he is not in a position to return or  2 pay the money.

In view of the aforesaid factual position and in order to ensure that the appellant – Neethu is not denied or deprived of the fruits of litigation and the decretal amount is paid, we partly modify the impugned judgment/decree of the High Court and hold that the decree will be executed jointly and severally against respondent no. 1 – Sunil and respondent no. 2 – Lohitakshan.

The impugned judgment is partly set aside and the appeal is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.................J. (SANJIV KHANNA) .................J. (S.V.N. BHATTI) NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 13, 2023.

                                   3

ITEM NO.56                   COURT NO.3                   SECTION XI-A

                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2526/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-11-2019 in MATAP No. 833/2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) NEETHU Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUNIL & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.638/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.641/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 13-10-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI For Petitioner(s) Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, Adv. Mr. Madan M. Bora, Adv. Mr. Sunil Narayanan S., Adv. M/s. Axess Legal Corp, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK GUGLANI)                                 (R.S. NARAYANAN)
   AR-cum-PS                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(signed order is placed on the file)