Allowed

Balakrishnan Nair v. Lathika

Kerala HC10 Jan 2014OP(C)/4420/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an application for impleadment of petitioners as additional defendants in an injunction suit regarding rituals in a 'kottil'. The High Court overruled the Munsiff, holding that impleadment was necessary to protect petitioners' rights despite the suit not being filed under Order I Rule 8 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing the impleadment application set aside; petitioners to be impleaded as supplemental defendants.

Balakrishnan Nair Vs Lathika — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/20TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

OP(C).No. 4420 of 2013 (O)

¶6

------------------------------------IN OS NO.1843/2011 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 7 TO 12:

¶8

1. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 74 YEARS

¶9

S/O PARUKUTTY AMMA, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE

¶10

POONKUNNAM DESOM, POONKUNNAM VILLAGE DESOM

¶11

THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶12

2. VISWANATHAN, AGED 53 YEARS

¶13

S/O DEVAKIYAMMA, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE

¶14

AARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ARATTUPUZHA VILLGE DESOM

¶15

THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTIRCT

¶16

3. SARASWATHIYAMMA, AGED 68 YEARS

¶17

D/O LAKSHMI AMMA, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE

¶18

AARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ARATTUPUZHA VILLGE DESOM

¶19

THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTIRCT

¶20

4. VENUGOPALAN, AGED 51 YEARS

¶21

S/O PARUKUTTIYAMMA, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE

¶22

CHEMBUTHRA ADESOM, PANANCHAERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK

¶23

THRISSUR DISTIRCT

¶24

5. JAYASREE, AGED 51 YEARS

¶25

D/O VEVAKIYAMMA, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, CHEMBUTHRA DESOM

¶26

PANANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUIK, THRISSUR DISTIRCT

¶27

6. RAJI, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O KARTHIYANI AMMA, MULLAPPILLUY HOUSE CHEMBUTHRA DEOSM, PANANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK

¶28

THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶31

1. LATHIKA,, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O SUBADRAMMA, MULLAPPILLY PADINJARE HOUSE, AARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶32

2. PIYOOSH,, AGED 51 YEARS S/O CHANDRAMATHIYAMMA, CHERRAKUZHI MULLAPPILLY HOUSE AARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶33

3. RAMU @ RAMACHANDRAN,, AGED 38 YEARS S/O SARADHA, CHEERAKUZHI MULLAPPILLY HOUSE AARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ARATTUPUZHA DESOM THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶34

4. PRAKASHAN @ JAYAPRAKASH,, AGED 45 YEARS S/O KARTHIYANI AMMA, VALIYA MULLAPPILLY HOUSE AARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTIRCT

¶35

5. KANNAN & SUDHIR,, AGED 40 YEARS

¶36

S/O SARASWATHI AMMA, CHEERAKUZHI MULLAPPILLY HOUSE AARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ARATTUPUZHA DESOM THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTIRCT

¶37

6. GANGADARAN NAIR,, AGED 63 YEARS

¶38

S/O JANAKY AMMA, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, ANCHERY DEOSM ANJERI OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶39

7. SANKARAN NAIR,, AGED 87 YEARS

¶40

S/O NARAYANI AMMA, NADUVILE MULLAPPILLY HOUSE AARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ARATTUPUZHA DESOM THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶41

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH RONY JOSE R1 BY ADV. SMT.O.A.NURIYA

¶42

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

OP(C).No. 4420 of 2013 (O)

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA NO 15422/2013 IN O.S NO 1843/2011 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR IMPLEADING. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO EXT P1. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-11-2013 IN I.A NO 15422/2013 IN O.S NO 1843 OF 2011.

¶47

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶48

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.1843/2011 DATED 03.06.2011. EXHIBIT R1 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO.1843/2011 DATED 16.11.2011.

¶49

// True copy // PA to Judge

¶50

das

¶51

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶52

==========================

¶53

O.P.(C). No. 4420 of 2013

¶54

===================================

¶55

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2014

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

An application (Ext.P1) was filed by the petitioners for getting themselves impleaded as the additional defendants in the suit. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P3 order stating that the suit is only for injunction simplicitor restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the conducting of poojas in the kottil (it is just like a temple) described in the plaint schedule and so, it is not necessary for the petitioners to get themselves impleaded in the suit as additional defendants.

¶58

The learned counsel for respondents strongly opposes the petition. Ext.R1 is the plaint. The relief claimed in the suit is to the effect that the defendants or their men shall not cause obstructions to the plaintiffs performing poojas or other rituals in the kottil and that

¶59

-: 2 :- O.P.(C).No. 4420/2013

¶60

defendants or their men shall not enter the kottil or perform poojas by themselves or conduct any meeting. Other incidental reliefs are also sought for. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, it was stated that the kottil of Vishnumaya shown in the schedule belongs to the family of plaintiffs and that the plaintiff is a member of Mullappilly Padinjare veedu thavazhi. Again it is stated that the right to perform poojas and rituals in that kottil belongs to the plaintiffs only. The registered document No.373 of 1918 ME (corresponding to 1943) alone was referred to in support of that plea.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequently registered partition deed of 1974 was entered into but that document and other documents have not been referred to at all. Though the suit is filed against 6 defendants, the averments in the plaint and the reliefs sought for would clearly preclude the petitioners from exercising their right in the 'kottil'.

¶62

It is true that a decree for injunction will bind only

¶63

-: 3 :-

¶64

O.P.(C).No. 4420/2013

¶65

the defendants, but at the same time, when it is specifically stated that the decree should bind not only the defendants but persons claiming similar right; namely performing poojas etc. in that kottil, it cannot be said that petitioners have no interest to come on record or that they are totally strangers or that the decree if any passed will not prejudice their right and interest. Though usually in a suit for injunction impleadment of parties as supplemental defendants will not be permitted, because of the peculiar nature of the case, I cannot agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners cannot be brought on record as supplemental defendants. Petitioners also claim similar right stating that they are also members of the same thavazhy/family.

¶66

Though the reliefs sought for in the plaint is against all the members of the thavazhi, the suit is not brought under order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶67

-: 4 :-

¶68

O.P.(C).No. 4420/2013

¶69

It is also submitted that another suit filed in

¶70

respect of the very same subject matter is pending and that a petition was filed before the District Court for transfer of that suit for the purpose of joint trial with this suit.

¶71

Considering all the aspects, the impugned order is set aside. The OP is allowed. But it is made clear that no further impleadment need be allowed on similar grounds as it would be an unending process. Petitioners shall be impleaded as supplemental defendants. Petitioners, who will be the supplemental defendants, will file their written statements at the earliest and will co-operate with the court for an early disposal of the suit.

¶72

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶73

das

Balakrishnan Nair v. Lathika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishnan Nair v. Lathika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.S. Viswanathan Vs Spl. Tahsildar

Devaki Amma Vs Ramachandran Pillai

Sini Chandra Vs Neelambaran

K.P Remanan Vs Smt. Rajamma

Francis Vs Jose

Prasantha K. Vs Rajendran