Kerala High Court
Kallyanikutty vs Kallyanikutty on 5 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942
OP(C).No.5 OF 2021
OS 72/2017 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM
-----------
PETITIONERS/SHOWN TO BE 2ND PLAINTIFF & 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 KALLYANIKUTTY
AGED 60 YEARS
D/O LATE PUNGATTU RAVUNNI, CHETHALLUR AMSOM DESOM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
2 KRISHNANKUTTY,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O LATE PUNGATTU RAVUNNI, CHETHALLUR AMSOM DESOM,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JAYARAM
SHRI. GIGI PAPPACHAN
SRI.SARATH CHANDRAN K.B.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT:
1 LAKSHMIKUTTY
AGED 67 YEARS
W/O KUNHIRAMAN, CHEPPEKKAD VEEDU, KARIMPA POST,
MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 597.
2 MALATHI P.R,
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O RAJAN, PLT NO 11, 2ND FLOOR, RAISAUM CASTLE, 7TH
CROSS STREET, LAKSHMI NAGAR EXTN, POROOR, CHENNAI-600
116.
3 SASIKALA,
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O LATE DAKSHAYANI, CHETHALLUR AMSOM DESOM, NOW
RESIDING AT NECHIPPURATHU VEEDU, POMPILAYA
P.O.NELLAYA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679
335.
OP(C).No.5 OF 2021
4 SHAJI,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O PUNGATTU KRISHNANKUTTY P.O.CHETHALLUR,
MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 609.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O. P. (C) No.5 of 2021
==================
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
An order transposing the second plaintiff as
additional third defendant in the suit is under
challenge by the second plaintiff and the first
defendant.
2. The suit is one for partition. According to
plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4, after the institution of the
suit, the second plaintiff is not co-operating with
them for conduct of the case. The second plaintiff
contended that she has not signed the plaint and
that her signature is fabricated.
3. Heard learned counsel on either sides.
4. As noticed by the trial court, the suit
being one for partition and the second plaintiff
being a sharerer, is a necessary party to the suit.
She having disowned the plaint, could only be
arrayed as a defendant. I do not find any error in
the jurisdiction exercised by the court in
directing transposition. However, it is made clear
O. P. (C) No.5 of 2021
that the second plaintiff, who is ordered to be
transposed as a defendant, shall not be bound by
the averments in the plaint and that she will be
entitled to file a written statement.
Original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
OP(C).No.5 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO 72/2017,
ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN OS NO
72/2017 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT,OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE
2ND DEFENDANT IN OS NO 72/2017, ON THE
FILES OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT HEREIN/3RD PLAINTIFF IN IA NO
865/2019 IN OS NO 72/2017 ON THE FILES OF
SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM TO TRANSPOSE THE 1ST
PETITIONER HEREIN AS THE 3RD DEFENDANT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN IN
OA NO 865/2019 IN OS NO 72/2017, ON THE
FILES OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER HEREIN/1ST
DEFENDANT IN IA NO 865/2019 IN OS NO
72/2017 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT,
OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2020 IN
IA NO 865/2019 IN OS NO 72/2017 ON THE
FILES OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM
------------
