Kerala High Court
Yeshoda vs Chirutha M. on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942
OP(C).No.546 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 320/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT,
HOSDRUG
PETITIONERS/SUPPLEMENTAL DEFENDANTS 5 TO 9:
1 YESHODA, AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN ACHARI,
RESIDING AT CHERIYAEDACHAL, THALIKUNDU,
PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.HARIPURAM,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 531.
2 SREEDHARAN T.,
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN ACHARI,
RESIDING AT CHERIYAEDACHAL,
THALIKUNDU, PULLUR VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.HARIPURAM,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 531.
3 PRASANNA T.
AGED 36 YEARS,
D/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN ACHARI, AITHANADUKKA,
NEETANIGE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.BELLUR,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 543.
4 RAJESH T.,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN ACHARI,
RESIDING AT CHERIYAEDACHAL, THALIKUNDU,
PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,
P.O.HARIPURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 531.
5 SREEJA T., AGED 30 YEARS,
D/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN ACHARI, RESIDING AT AINGOTH,
KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.PADANNAKAD,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 314.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN
OP(C).No.546 OF 2021
2
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 1, 3 & 4:
1 CHIRUTHA M., AGED 75 YEARS
D/O.KANDATHIL VEETTIL APPA, RESIDING AT THALIKUNDU,
PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. HARIPURAM,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 531.
2 RAMAN M., AGED 74 YEARS
S/O.KANDATHIL VEETTIL APPA, RESIDING AT THALIKUNDU,
PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. HARIPURAM,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 531.
3 KRISHNAN A., AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.KARIYAN, ADUKKATHIL HOUSE,
RESIDING AT MANNATTA, AJANUR VILLAGE,
KOSDURG TALUK, P.O.ANANDASHRAMAM,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 531.
4 UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O.KUNHAMBU NAIR, KIZHAKKE VEEDU,
RESIDING AT VISHNUMANGALAM,
PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,
P.O. HARIPURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 531.
5 KUMARAN, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.RAMAN, RESIDNG AT MANNATTA, AJANUR VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. ANANDASHRAMAM,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN 671 531.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No.546 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in this original petition are the additional
defendants 5 to 9 sought to be impleaded in
O.S.No.320/2016 on the file of Munsiff Court, Hosdurg as
legal representatives of the deceased 2 nd respondent.
2. I.A.No.2/2020 was filed seeking to implead the petitioners as
the legal representatives of the deceased 2 nd defendant and
I.A.No.1/2020 was filed for condonation of delay. It is
submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, they did not
appear before the court below and are yet to raise objections
to I.A Nos.1 and 2 of 2020. It is further submitted that, the
original 2 nd defendant impleaded in the suit was only a
member of the temple committee and did not hold any
independent right. Therefore, the cause of action will not
survive against any of the petitioners. The contention raised
in this original petition as ground No.E is extracted below:
E) The Court below omitted to advert to the
pleadings in Ext.P1 plaint regarding the right of
the original second defendant. The original 2 nd
defendant was impleaded only as he was
member of the temple committee and had not
claimed any individual right. The legal heirs
viz the petitioners, are not members of the
OP(C).No.546 OF 2021
temple committee and cause of action will not
survive as against the petitioners. The
impugned order would result in the petitioners
being dragged to court unnecessarily, though
originally no relief has been sought and when
there is no averment of trespass against the
petitioners.
3. If the contention raised by the petitioners is factually
correct, it appears that, there is no justification in having
them brought on record as legal representatives of the
deceased. I, however, do not express any view on merits of
the case in as much as I did not have the advantage of
hearing the respondents.
4. Having regard to the nature of relief which I propose to
grant, the notice to respondents herein was dispensed with.
It suffices to say that, the court below shall decide upon the
contentions raised by the petitioners in the form of ground
No.E in this petition in case the petitioners appear before
that court and raise the objections to I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of
2020.
5. In the result, this original petition is disposed of with a
direction to the court below to decide the question as to
whether the petitioners are liable to be impleaded as legal
OP(C).No.546 OF 2021
representatives of the deceased 2 nd defendant in the suit in
the light of objections being raised by them before that
court.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR, JUDGE
AMV/02/03/2021
OP(C).No.546 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.NO.320/2016 ON THE FILE OF
MUNSIFF'S COURT, HOSDURG.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
FILE BY THE DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2/2020 IN
O.S.NO.320/2016.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY C.M.
APPLICATION 1/2020 TO CONDONE THE
DELAY OF 138 DAYS.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED ON
BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS DATED
1.12.2020
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER TO THE
DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION DATED
1.12.2020
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
10.12.2020 IN I.A.NO.2/2020
O.S.NO.320/2016.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE
