The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner's original petition. The court held the petitioner was not a necessary or proper party to implead as he was born after the Hindu Joint Family Abolition Act and had no ownership right over the property.
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941
OP(C).No.2007 OF 2018(O)
Against the order/judgment in IA No. 1361 of 2016 in in OS 221/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM
PETITIONER/S:
K.S.RAMAKRISHNAN S/O K.R SIVASANKARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUSLI PATHATH KOTTAYIL, KANNIAMPURAM, AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENT/S:
2 SAROJINI DEVI W/O LATE. RAMAKRISHNA GPUTHAN, RESIDING AT MUSLI PATHATH KOTTAYIL, KANNIYAMPURAM AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD-679104.
-: 2 :-
OP(C).No.2007 OF 2018(O)
4 ADDL. R4. SUBRAHMANYAN, H/O.LATE K.S.INDIRA, RESIDING AT MUSLI PATHATH KOTTAYIL, KANNIYAMPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT THERUKALAM, KADAMBAZHIPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 633.
5 ADDL. R5. JAYASANKAR, S/O.LATE K.S.INDIRA, RESIDING AT MUSLI PATHATH KOTTAYIL, KANNIYAMPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT THERUKALAM, KADAMBAZHIPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 633.
6 ADDL. R6. VIJAYAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE K.S.INDIRA, RESIDING AT MUSLI PATHATH KOTTAYIL, KANNIYAMPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT THERUKALAM, KADAMBAZHIPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD - 678 633.
(Additional R4 to R6 , being the legal representatives of deceased R1 are impleaded as per order dated 26-10-2018 in the Original Petition itself)
R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.AKHIL S.VISHNU R4-6 BY ADV. K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-: 3 :-
OP(C).No.2007 OF 2018(O)
JUDGMENT
In this Original Petition, the prayer of the petitioner is to set aside Ext. P5 order passed by the Munsiffs Court, Ottappalam in I.A. No. 1361 of 2016 in O.S. No. 221 of 2013.
3. The original plaintiff contended that the petitioner had no locus standi to file any petition for impleadment. The petitioner is not entitled to any right over the B Schedule property. The petitioner was born after 1-12-1976, the date on which Hindu Joint Family Abolition Act came into existence. The plaint B Schedule Property belonged to the parents of the
-: 4 :-
OP(C).No.2007 OF 2018(O)
plaintiff , deceased Rama Gupta and the third defendant and on their demise, the property devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaint B Schedule property was kept in common. There is no stipulation in the partition deed with respect to the plaint B Schedule item No. 2 property.
-: 5 :-
OP(C).No.2007 OF 2018(O)
defendant. There is no allegation that the second defendant had made any collusion with the plaintiff. There is also no allegation that there is any chance for the second defendant to collude with the plaintiffs. In the said circumstances, since the father of the petitioner is contesting the partition suit, the petitioner is not a necessary party. That apart, the only claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner has the right to use plaint B Schedule Item No. 2 and to visit plaint B Schedule Item No. 1 tomb. It appears that the petitioner has no right of ownership over plaint B Schedule properties. Moreover, the plaint B Schedule properties are kept for common use. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is not a proper or necessary party. For the said reason, I do not find any reason to set aside Ext. P5 order passed by the court below.
In the result, this Original Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-B. Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.
ani/
-: 6 :-
OP(C).No.2007 OF 2018(O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.221/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF OTTAPALAM DATED 26.6.2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF I.A NO.1361/2016 IN O.S NO.221/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 27.5.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO EXT.P2 APPLICATION DATED 3.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO EXT.P2 APPLICATION DATED 20.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P5
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A NO.1361/2016 IN O.S NO.221/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF COURT OF OTTAPALAM DATED 26.5.2018.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, born after the Hindu Joint Family Abolition Act, is a necessary or proper party to implead under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Whether the petitioner has a right of ownership or usage over the disputed property to challenge the exclusion order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.S. Ramakrishnan
K.S. Indira
Sarojini Devi
K.R. Sivasankaran
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
