Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.
Mat. Appeal No.241/2008 was heard and disposed of by judgment dated 28/1/2014. Appeal was filed challenging the decree and judgment in O.P.No.361/1999 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur. The Family Court granted a decree in favour of the petitioner therein for recovery of `2,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition. Both sides filed the appeal. The appeal was heard on merits after evaluating the evidence on record. We find that no sustainable grounds are made out by both sides for interference with the impugned judgment. The judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is modified to a limited extent of lifting the rate of interest. The interest @ 6% awarded by the court below was modified and revised as 7.5%. All other findings recorded by the court below stand confirmed.
2. Original Petition was filed seeking recovery of the gold ornaments. The prayer was for return the gold ornaments or for recovery of its value of `3,77,400/-. The learned Judge examined the contentions of the parties and held that the value shown in the petition schedule in respect of gold ornaments sought to be recovered is excessive. The court below after adjudication, fixed the value of gold ornaments as `2,00,000/-. This was examined by this Court on merits and found that value of the gold ornaments fixed by the court below is correct and proper. In the circumstances, this Court did not interfere with the findings of the -2-
R.P.No.234/2014
court below.
The review petition is filed by the appellant on the ground that the value of the gold ornaments is not correct and that the appellant was really entitled to the present market value of the gold ornaments. Learned counsel for the review petitioner on the strength of the Division Bench decision in William David v. Linu Maruy George (2010 (4) KLT 691) contended that the present market value of the gold ornaments has to be considered by the court below while considering the alternative relief claimed for return of gold ornaments. It is also contended that the said decision has not been mistakenly brought to the attention of this Court at the time of final hearing. According to the learned counsel, the judgment happened to be passed without considering the dictum laid down by this Court, which was confirmed by the Apex Court.
The prayer in the original petition was for return of gold ornaments or in the alternative its value. Parties are husband and wife. Their marriage took place on 1998. The petition was filed in 1999. The value as on the date of filing the petition HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.
kcv.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
R.P.No.234/2014
-3-