The petitioner challenged the lower court's order allowing an amendment to the plaint in a title suit. The High Court found that the amendment clarified reliefs regarding title, possession, and church administration without altering the suit's fundamental nature, 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 186 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OS NO.963 OF 2015 OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/2nd DEFENDANT:
JOHN SAM N AGED 55 YEARS BEITH ZION, PALLIVILAKATHU VEEDU, ANCHUMARANGALA, VELLARADA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505 BY ADVS. JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SABIR N.S.
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT 1 AND 3 TO 8:
(REGISTER NO. 30 OF 1952-1953, NEW NO. 001359) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GRACE HOME, THOONGAMPARA, KANDALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR N.S SIMON, GRACE HOME, THOONGAMPARA, KANDALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695512 2 RAJESH , S/O PONNAYYAN AGED 45 YEARS RESIDING AT THEKKEKARA VEEDU, IRINJINAMPALLY, VELLARADA P.O, PIN - 695505 3 ANEESH THANKACHAN AGED 35 YEARS S/O THANKACHAN, RESIDING AT PALLIVILAKATHU VEEDU, ANCHUMARANGALA, VELLARAD P.O,, PIN - 695505 4 SHAJI R , S/O RAJU RESIDING AT ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, PONNAMBI, VELLARADA P.O,PIN -, PIN - 695505 5 SATHYADAS , S/O LASER RESIDING AT KUZHIVILAKATHU VEEDU, VELLARADA P.O,PIN -, PIN - 695505 6 G. SAMUEL , S/O GEORGE AGED 58 YEARS RESIDING AT ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, NADARKONAM, VELLARADA P.O,PIN -, PIN - 695505 7 SATHYADAS , S/O JOHNSON
O.P.(C).No. 186 of 2024
..2..
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS , RESIDING AT THADATHARAIKATHU VEEDU, PERIKONAM, VELLARADA P.O,, PIN - 695505 8 CHRISTUDAS @ MANIYAN AGED 52 YEARS , RESIDING AT VANAMVILA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, VELLARADA P.O, PIN - 695505 BY ADVS. Gopan R ANGEL GLORIA V.S.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C).No. 186 of 2024
..3..
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2024
Petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant in the suit,
O.S.No.963/2015 pending before the Second Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, which allowed Ext.P3 amendment application seeking to incorporate additional reliefs to the plaint.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the respondents.
3. The first objection raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, if the amendment is carried out, relief no.8 will become meaningless. According to the learned counsel, if the words “declaring plaintiffs' title and possession over the plaint scheduled property” are
to be deleted from relief no.A, then the said
O.P.(C).No. 186 of 2024
..4..
relief will not convey any sense. The second objection is to the effect that, the amendment proposed will alter the nature and character of the suit. On such premise, Ext.P5 order is assailed by the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit, what is sought for is not to delete the portion as shown within inverted
commas, but to delete the remaining portion in relief no.A, after retaining the portion which is shown in the inverted commas. Therefore, the relief will be only to declare the plaintiffs' title and possession over the plaint schedule property. The rest of the contents in prayer no.A, as it exists now, is sought to be deleted. As regards the second objection with respect to altering the nature and character of the suit, learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that, the relief sought for are all based on the
O.P.(C).No. 186 of 2024
..5..
pleadings already pleaded in the plaint and the same will not alter the nature and character of the suit.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. This Court is of the opinion that, the learned counsel for the petitioner has misread and misunderstood the scope of the amendment sought to be incorporated to relief no.A. What is sought to be deleted are the words, after that portion in relief A “declaring plaintiffs' title and possession over the plaint schedule property”; and not those portion, which is shown within the inverted commas. Therefore, the first objection as against Ext.P5 order allowing the amendment, cannot stand.
6. With respect to the second objection, the additional relief sought to be incorporated, is
O.P.(C).No. 186 of 2024
..6..
for recovery of possession, in case any portion of the plaint schedule property is found to be in the possession of the defendants and also, to restrain the defendants from interfering or meddling with the plaintiff's right of administration and control over the plaint schedule property. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the plaintiff is Zion Sangam, represented by its president, which is a company
engaged in preserving and propagating the teachings of gospel of Jesus, up holding the new testament. It is averred in paragraph no.3 that the plaintiff company has the right to administer the sacraments in the church, in accordance with the word of God. In paragraph no.4, it is the averred that, the plaintiff Sangam is conducting and managing churches in different parts of South India. As regards defendants, the plaint would state that they are residing in the locality, who
have no manner of right or possession over the
O.P.(C).No. 186 of 2024
..7..
plaint schedule property, except occasionally taking part in the prayer service. Originally, a declaration was sought for in respect of the plaintiffs' title and possession over the plaint schedule property, along with a permanent prohibitory injunction. The injunctive relief, which is clubbed with relief no.A, is sought to be deleted by the amendment sought for. Instead, the relief for injunction is specifically sought to be incorporated as a separate relief. It is true that, in the injunctive relief, which was sought for originally, the right to administer the church and injunction from interfering with its affairs is not incorporated. The same is sought to be incorporated by the new relief, vide relief no.C. However, the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit is specifically with respect to the church and its administration. Therefore, incorporating relief no.C, which pertains to an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and inter-meddling
O.P.(C).No. 186 of 2024
..8..
with administration of the church, is something which flows from the existing pleadings in the plaint, wherefore, it cannot be said that the said amendment would alter the nature and character of the suit.
This Court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition and the same will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE
TR
O.P.(C).No. 186 of 2024
..9..
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 186/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT NO.963 OF 2015 Exhibit P 2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS Exhibit P 3 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION I.A.NO. 2 OF 2021 Exhibit P 4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED TO THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION Exhibit P 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-10-2023 IN I.A.NO.02/2021 IN O.S.NO.963 OF 2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFFS COURT-II NEYYATTINKARA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the amendment to the plaint will make relief no.8 meaningless?
Whether the amendment alters the nature and character of the suit?
John Sam
Zion Sangam
Rajesh
Aneesh Thankachan
Shaji R
Sathyadas
C. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
