This High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition seeking to amend the plaint to include a prayer for a negative declaration against a co-defendant's right in the property holding that such suits are not maintainable except for declaratory relief on one's own right.
The original petition challenging the dismissal of amendment application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/30TH POUSHA, 1937
OP(C).No. 1803 of 2015 (O)
OS 45/2012 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, ERATTUPETTA.
PETITIONER:
MICHALE, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, MUNDATHANATHU HOUSE, ULLANADU KARA, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
RESPONDENTS:
1. JOSE @ KUJAPPU, S/O. JOSEPH, POTTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ULLANADU KARA,
2. OUSEPH, S/O. OUSEPH,
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
OP(C).No. 1803 of 2015 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
O.P.(C)No.1803 of 2015
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.45 of 2012 of Munsiff Court, Erattupetta. A reading of the plaint shows that he claims easement by prescription over plaint item No.2 way which passes through plaint item No.2. When the suit was instituted there was only one defendant who is the first respondent in this Original Petition. Later on the allegation that another person had right in the item No.2 he was impleaded as second defendant. He is the second respondent in this Original Petition. The petitioner filed an application to amend the plaint again. The main amendment sought for is incorporation of a relief that the first respondent has no right in plaint schedule item No.2. The other amendments sought for are not much relevant. The application has been dismissed by the trial court.
O.P.(C)No.1803 of 2015 2
of those facts. The trial court rightly dismissed the application.
In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
JUDGE
cms
/True copy/ P.S.to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit for a negative declaration that another person has no right in the property is maintainable.
Michael, aged 56 years, S/o. Joseph
Jose @ Kujappu, S/o. Joseph
Ouseph, S/o. Ouseph
K.Abraham Mathew
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
