The High Court dismissed a writ petition regarding a belated amendment application in a property suit, finding it justified by new evidence. It granted the review petition directed expeditious disposal within four months despite pandemic constraints.
Review Petition allowed; suit to be disposed within four months; other writ petition 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 SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
RP NO. 595 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 427/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE OP(C):
ANTONY MATHEW AGED 73 YEARS THARAPEL VETTIL, BLOCK NO. 157, EX-SERVICE MEN COLONY, VECHOOCHIRA, KUNNAM MURI, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, MANNADISALA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-686 511
BY ADVS. T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA) SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS NO.S 2 TO 7 IN THE OP (C):
1 P.M. MATHEW AGED 52 YEARS S/O. MATHEW, POWETH HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, CHATHANTHARAKARA P.O, MANNADISALA, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-686 511
2 RAJENDRAPRASAD, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. K.VASUDEVAN, VALLIYATHUVEETTIL, KARATHUMURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 510
3 PADMAJA, AGED 60 YEARS D/O. VASUDEVAN, PLAMOOTTIL THEKKETHIL VEETTIL, PUTHUPALLI VILLAGE, PUTHUPPALLI P.O, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 527
4 SUSHAMA, AGED 55 YEARS D/O. VASUDEVAN, PLAMOOTTIL THEKKETHIL VEETTIL, PUTHUPALLI VILLAGE, PUTHUPPALLI P.O, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 527
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case
2
5 SREEKALA, AGED 48 YEARS D/O. VASUDEVAN, VALLIYATHUVEETTIL, KARATHUMURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 510
6 RATHNAMMA, AGED 73 YEARS W/O. VASUDEVAN, VALLIYATHUVEETIL, KARATHUMURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 510
7 SREEKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, VALLIYATHUVEETTIL, KARATHUMURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 510
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV.O.V MANIPRASAD
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).1178/2019, THE COURT ON 9/9/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 1178 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 289/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/ADDL.7TH DEFENDANT:
P.M.MATHEW AGED 52 YEARS S/O. MATHEW,POWEH HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, CHATHANTHARA KARA (P.O), MANNADISALA, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-686 511
BY ADV O.V.MANIPRASAD
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 6:
1 ANTONY MATHEW AGED 73 YEARS THARAPEL VETTIL, BLOCK NO.157,EX-SERVICE MEN COLONY, VECHOOCHIRA, KUNNAM MURI, KOLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, MANNADISALA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN686 511 2 RAJENDRAPRASAD AGED 58 YEARS S/O. K.VASUDEVAN, VALLIYATHUVEETTIL, KARATHUMURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690 510
3 PADMAJA, AGED 60 YEARS D/O. VASUDEVAN PUTHIYAZHETHUVEEDU, KARATHUMURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690 510
4 SUSHAMA, AGED 55 YEARS D/O. VASUDEVAN, PLAMMOOTTIL THEKKETHIL VEETTIL,PUTHUPALLI VILLAGE, PUTHUPALLI P.O., KARTHIKAPPILLY TALUK,
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case 4
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690 527
5 SREEKALA, AGED 48 YEARS D/O VASUDEVAN, VALLAYATHU VEETTIL, KARANMAMURIYIL, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690 510
6 RATHNAMMA, AGED 73 YEARS W/O VASUDEVAN, VALLAYATHU VEETTIL, KARATHUMURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690 510
(EXPIRED)
7 SREEKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS S/O VASUDEVAN, VALLAYATHU VEETTIL, KARATHUMURI, PERINGALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, OLAKETTIYAMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690 510 (THE 6TH RESPONDENT DIED AND HIS LR'S ARE ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY AS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 AND 7. THIS IS RECORDED AS PER ORDER DATED 21-11-2019 IN MEMO DATED 08-08-2019 IN OPC 1178/2019)
BY ADV SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, ALONG WITH RP.595/2019, THE COURT ON 9/9/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case
5
COMMON JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner in O.P.(C) No.427/2019 is the Additional 7th defendant in O.S.No.289/2008 of Munsiff Court Ranni. He had approached this court by filing the above O.P.(C) lamenting that there is long delay in the disposal of O.S.No.289/2008 of the Munsiff Court, Ranni and sought for a direction for an expeditious disposal of the suit. This court by judgment dated 1-4-2019, on the basis of a communication of the Munsiff Court, Ranni dated 13/2/2019, undertaking to dispose the matter within two months, disposed O.P.(C) with a direction to the court below to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of re-opening.
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case
6
O.S.No.289/2008 of the Munsiff Court, Ranni. The suit was one for declaring general power of attorney No.19/2005 of Bharananganam SRO executed by the defendants 1 to 6 in favour of one of the defendants and to set aside sale deed No.1101/2020 of the SRO, Ranni by which the defendant No.6 on the strength of general power of attorney No.19/2005 of Bharanikavu SRO executed by defendants 1 to 5 in his favour, assigned the property to the additional 7th defendant. The above documents were sought to be declared as null and void.
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case
7
over the property. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration of both the documents as null and void. It seems that the original 7th defendant was not impleaded as party and later got impleaded.
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case
8
on both sides, relying on authorities conteded in accordance with their averments. There is no dispute that the amendment application was highly belated. However, it is specifically mentioned in the application itself that consequent to the evidence given by PW8, new facts were disclosed and amendment was liable to be carried out. It is pertinent to note that amendment sought is essentially in relation to the devolution of title in favour of Vasudevan. It is true that it is a matter over which the plaintiff may not have a direct knowledge being the devolution of title in favour of the predecessor of the defendants. Hence, he can only rely on the available documents. In this circumstance, only when the witness, on the basis of the records gave evidence that LA20/1973 related to another person, this could be corrected. It cannot hence be said that the specifically, an admission made by the plaintiff was sought to be withdrawn. Hence it cannot be considered as one taking away the valid admissions made. The admission which was to bind the party can only be in relation to one which was within the knowledge and admitted to be true at the time of evidence. It cannot be extended beyond that. Further, the earlier averments and the amended averments are already on record. The court has taken care of this aspect and has permitted further cross examination, if required. Having considered his, I find nothing to interfere with Ext.P10 order granting amendment. Hence, O.P.(C) No.1178/2019 is liable to be dismissed confirming the impugned order.
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case
9
pending before the court below. Necessarily, the court below has to dispose of those applications as expeditiously as possible. Having considered the pendency of the interlocutory applications as stated at the time of hearing and also the existing pandemic, I am inclined to grant a slightly longer time for an early disposal of the original suit. Accordingly,Review Petition in O.P.(C) No.427/2019 will stand allowed with a direction to the court below to dispose of O.S.No.289/2008 of Munsiff Court, Ranni, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, O.P.(C) No.1178/2019 is dismissed. R.P.No.595/2019 in O.P.(C) No.427/2019 is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge
dpk
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case
10
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1178/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.289/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 9.7.2009 OF DEFENDANTS 1 TO 6 IN O.S.289/2008 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY THE MEMO DATED 11.02.2014 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.250/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.3.2017 IN RS 85/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.7.2017 IN RP 617/2017 IN RSA 85/2011 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT FILED AS I.A.432/2019 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P8 APPLICATION EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1154/1976 OF SRO,RANNI EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2019 IN I.A.NO.432/2019 IN O.S.289/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI EXT.R1(A): COPY OF POA NO.19/2005 OF BHARANIKAVU SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1101/2005 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE RANNY.
EXT.R2(C): COPY OF THE PATTA NO. LA 20/73
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case
11
EXT.R1(D): COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF TAHASILDAR, LAND RECORD RANNY.
RP NO..595/2019 & connected case
12
APPENDIX OF RP 595/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 01.04.2019 IN OP(C) NO. 427 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a late amendment application by the plaintiff, necessitated by new evidence against predecessor's title, was highly belated and flagrantly mala fide?
Whether the High Court directions for expeditious disposal of a civil suit need modification due to pending interlocutory applications and pandemic?
Whether the additional 7th defendant filing a writ for expeditious disposal relates directly to the same suit?
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN OP(C) 427/2019 & ADDL 7TH DEFENDANT IN O.S. 289/2008
P.M. MATHEW
RAJENDRAPRASAD
PADMAJA
SUSHAMA
SREEKALA
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
