Allowed

Pushpalatha, v. Meenakshi

Kerala HC12 Jul 2023OP(C)/394/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an amendment application in a partition suit to correct the property extent from a large acreage down to 2 cents. The court held this amendment does not alter the suit's character and set aside the lower court's order rejecting the amendment, directing implementation within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Extension of the application for amendment is allowed; the Ext.P6 order is set aside.

Pushpalatha, Vs Meenakshi — Partition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF JULY 2023 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 394 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2019 IN I.A.No.344/2019 IN OS

¶7

95/2010 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER (PETITIONER IN IA & 1st PLAINTIFF IN OS):

¶9

PUSHPALATHA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/o VADAKKEPRATH LATE NANDHAGOPALAN, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678582.

¶10

BY ADVS. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH

¶11

SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SRI.VIMAL VIJAY SHRI.RESHMA T.R.

¶12

RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS IN IA/DEFENDANTS IN OS):

¶13

1 MEENAKSHI, AGED 43 YEARS, W/o HARI, RESIDING AT PAZHANI AMMAL HOUSE, VADAKKEPRATH, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678582.

¶14

2 KANNAN @ HARI, AGED 51 YEARS, S/o SUBHAYYAN CHETTIYAR, RESIDING AT PAZHANI AMMAL HOUSE, VADAKKEPRATH, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678582.

¶15

3 ADBUL NASAR, S/o PULLATH LATE CHEKKU, RESIDING AT KAITHACHIRA, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678582.

¶16

BY ADV SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 12.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C) No.394 of 2020

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in a suit for injunction came up with

¶22

an application for amendment to correct the extent of the property at the trial stage. It is only pertaining to 2 cents, out of a large extent of 1.38 Acres. Evidence already adduced and completed. A Survey Commission was also deputed, who, in turn, reported the existence of the property and its measurement as 1.38 Acres. As such, the amendment sought will not alter the character and nature of the suit. If it is found necessary to recall any of

¶23

the witnesses examined, it is permissible. Hence, Ext.P6 order will stand set aside and the application for amendment will stand allowed and it shall be carried out

¶24

within 15 days from the date of appearance of the parties, for which the parties shall appear before the trial court on 27.07.2023.

¶25

The Original Petition will stand allowed accordingly.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

DMR/-

OP(C) No.394 of 2020

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 394/2020

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶33

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2322/1988 DATED 21.6.1988 S.R.O., MANNARKKAD.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF AMENDMENT APPLICATION I.A.344/2019 IN OS.NO.95/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANNARKKAD DATED 23.5.2019.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN I.A.NO.344/2019 IN OS.95/2010 DATED 10.7.2019 MUNSIFF COURT, MANNARKKAD, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT AND PLAN FILED IN O.S.NO.95/2010 MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD DATED 27.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT AND PLAN FILED IN IA 737/13 IN OS.95/2010 MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD DATED 1.7.2017.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.344/2019 IN OS 95/2010 DATED 21.11.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANNARKKAD.

¶34

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

Pushpalatha, v. Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpalatha, v. Meenakshi

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

George Mathew, Vs Gandhigram Agro Based Industrial Co-Operative Society

Friends S.H.G. Jayagiri, Vs Gandhigram Agro Based Industrial Co-Operative Society

Paul Mathew Vs Gandhigram Agro Based Industrial Co-Operative Society

C.N.Appukkuttan Vs the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (Kerala)

C.N.Appukkuttan Vs the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (Kerala)

Satheesan Vs the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (Kerala)