Plaintiffs challenged an order impleading a third party as defendant in their title declaration suit, contending plaintiffs are masters of the suit and impleadment was sought to overcome limitation. The High Court held the impleaded party was a necessary/proper party given overlapping title claims in two suits, and dismissed the petition.
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 C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 1555 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2022 IN OS NO.208 OF 2011 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT, THIRUVALLA PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/PLAINTIFF:
1 V.M.EASOKUTTY AGED 80 YEARS /O V.M.MATHEW, RESIDING AT MULLANKUZHIKKAL HOUSE, NARAKATHANI P.O., VALANKARA MURI, PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689544
2 ANNAMMA EASOW AGED 72 YEARS W/O V.M. EASOW, RESINGING AT MULLANKUZHIKKAL HOUSE, NARAKATHANI P.O., VALANKARA MURI, PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689544
BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3-9 & PETITIONER/DEFENDANTS:
1 ELIYAMMA VARGHESE, AGED 76 YEARS RESIDING AT VARAMBEL PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, AYIROOR NORTH P.O., AYIROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689612
RESIDING AT VARAMBEL PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, AYIROOR NORTH P.O., AYIROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK., PIN - 689612
O.P.(C).No. 1555 of 2022
..2..
7 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA P,O., PIN - 689645
8 MARIYAMMA VARGHESE AGED 77 YEARS W/O VARGHESE, RESIDING AT KUTTIKANDATHIL HOUSE, VALANKARA MURI, PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689585 BY ADVS. Babu Cherukara ARUN BABU(K/854/2017)
OTHER PRESENT:
GP-S.UNNIKRISHNAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C).No. 1555 of 2022
..3..
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2024
Petitioners are the plaintiffs in the Suit, O.S.No.208/2011, pending before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, which allowed an impleading petition preferred by the 8th respondent herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 8th respondent and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 4 to 7. Other respondents, though served, has no appearance before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Suit, O.S.No.208/2011 was filed seeking a declaration of the petitioners' title
O.P.(C).No. 1555 of 2022
..4..
over the plaint schedule property having an extent of 14.16 ares, and also, for a consequential injunction. The plaintiffs are claiming title over the property by virtue of a settlement deed of the year 1986. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 3 are questioning the title of the plaintiffs and hence the suit was filed. The present 8th respondent is a stranger, according to the petitioners and he filed an impleading
petition. As a matter of fact, the present 8th respondent filed another suit, O.S.No.325/2016, before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla, against the petitioners and others for declaration of his title. The 8th respondent in that suit would contend that, certain documents were created which
are not binding on the 8th respondent and
declaration is sought for on that premise. The suit was got transferred to the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, wherein, the present suit O.S. No.208/2011 was pending. An application was filed for joint trial of the two suits, which was
O.P.(C).No. 1555 of 2022
..5..
allowed. It was while so, that the 8th respondent filed an interlocutory application seeking impleadment in the petitioners' suit. The same was allowed by Ext.P6 order. Learned counsel would submit that, the 8th respondent cannot thrust himself as a defendant in the plaintiffs' suit and the plaintiffs/petitioners, being the masters of the suit, have the right to decide the persons against whom they seek reliefs. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the impleadment is sought for in order to to get over the question of limitation, since, the 8th respondent is claiming title to the property, by virtue of a document of the year 2004, whereas, the instant suit was filed only in the year 2016. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P6 order cannot be sustained and the same has to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 8th respondent would submit that, the suit
O.P.(C).No. 1555 of 2022
..6..
O.S.No.208/2011 is a collusive suit preferred by the petitioners herein, with their relatives as the defendants, for declaration of their title. It was submitted that, the extent of 8.09 ares, over which declaration is sought for in the suit preferred by the 8th respondent, is part and parcel of 14.16 ares, in respect of which title is sought to be declared in the petitioners' suit, O.S.No.208/2011. According to the learned counsel,
after selling the property to the present 8th respondent, certain bogus documents were created, wherefore, the present 8th respondent is very much a necessary party in the suit preferred by the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on
both sides, this Court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. It is true that, the plaintiffs/petitioners are the masters of their
suit and they are quite at liberty in law to choose the persons against whom the reliefs are to
O.P.(C).No. 1555 of 2022
..7..
be obtained. However, here is a case where, there are two suits, both of which seeks declaration of
title. While the extent of the property in the suit preferred by the petitioners is 14.16 ares, the same is 8.09 ares in the suit preferred by the 8th respondent. In the 2nd suit, the petitioners are very much a party, as defendants. It is the further contention of the 8th respondent that, the extent of 8.09 ares is part and parcel of 14.16
ares, over which the petitioners claim declaration of title. This Court also takes into account the allegation that the suit, O.S.No.208/2011, is a collusive suit preferred by the petitioners against his relatives in the array of parties. As rightly found by the learned Sub Judge, the present 8th respondent is a necessary party to the
suit, at any rate a proper party. Such impleadment is all the more required in order to avoid conflicting decisions, in the sense that two declarations over the properties which overlap each other may be passed in the two suits. For a
O.P.(C).No. 1555 of 2022
..8..
permanent quietus and finality of the issues, the impleadment sought for is quite necessary.
6. This Court should remind itself that in exercise of his powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors, if any, in the orders, unless there is a patent illegality, resulting in gross injustice.
In this circumstance, this Original petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE
TR
O.P.(C).No. 1555 of 2022
..9..
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1555/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 VTHE COPY OF PLAINT IS O.S NO. 208/2011 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S NO. 46/2012 OF MUNSIFFS COURT, THIRUVALLA Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S NO. 325/216 OF MUNSIFFS COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED 24.06.2016 Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF IA NO. 403/2016 IN O.S NO. 208/2016 Exhibit P5 THE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST EXHIBIT P4 IMPLEADING PETITION
Exhibit P6 THE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 403/2016 IN O.S NO. 208/2011 DATED 21.06.2022 SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R8(a) True copy of the Sale Deed No.1526/1996 of Vennikulam Sub Registrar's office dated 24-8-1996. Exhibit R8(b) True copy of the gift deed No.1795/2011 of Vennikulam Sub Registry executed by the 2nd petitioner infavour of the 1st petitioner dated 31-10-2011.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sub Court erred in allowing impleadment of the 8th respondent as a defendant in the plaintiffs' title suit.
Whether interference under Article 227 was warranted against the impleadment order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.M. Easokutty
Annamma Easow
Eliyamma Varghese
Joe Varghese
V.M. Varghese
Mariyamma Varghese
C. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
