Kerala High Court
Muhammed Sha vs Veeran on 3 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942
OP(C).No.441 OF 2021
IA NO.401/2021 IN O.S.NO.176/2018 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, OTTAPPALAM
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
MUHAMMED SHA
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O. POOLAKKAL KUNJARAMU, EDAKODE, PAVUKONAM
DESOM, KOTHAKURUSSI AMSOM, OTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SRI.P.JAYARAM
SHRI. GIGI PAPPACHAN
SRI.SARATH CHANDRAN K.B.
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 VEERAN
S/O. CHOLAYIL ALAVI HAJI, PAVUKONAM DESOM,
KOTHAKURUSSI AMSOM, P.O EDAKODE, OTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 522
2 MAMMUNNI
S/O. CHOLAYIL ALAVI HAJI, PAVUKONAM DESOM,
KOTHAKURUSSI AMSOM, P.O EDAKODE, OTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 522
3 AMINA
W/O. CHOLAYIL VEERAN, PAVUKONAM DESOM,
KOTHAKURUSSI AMSOM, P.O EDAKODE, OTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 522
4 SAINABHA
W/O. MAMMUNNI, EDAKODE, PAVUKONAM DESOM,
KOTHAKURUSSI AMSOM, P.O EDAKODE, OTTAPALM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 522
R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.441 of 2021
:-2-:
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2021
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff in O.S.No.176/2018 before the
Munsiff's court, Ottappalam, challenges Ext.P8
order dated 06.02.2021 passed in I.A.No.401/2021.
2. The plaintiff filed the above application
seeking to amend the plaint which the defendants/
respondents seriously opposed. The court below
after hearing the arguments raised on both sides,
dismissed the amendment application.
3. The amendment sought is to correct the suit
property description in the schedule concerning the
measurements made therein as well as to incorporate
Section 27(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act') in the
plaint changing the suit valuation.
4. The purport of the amendment application
seems to bring up an additional issue as to title
O.P.(C)No.441 of 2021
:-3-:
to suit property on record and to have it decided
in the suit.
5. I heard the learned counsel appearing on
both sides.
6. Looking at Section 27(a) of the Act, in
order to have the suit valued under Section 27(a),
the suitor must have essentially alleged in the
plaint that the defendants in the suit denied title
to the suit property. Going by the plaint
contentions as a whole, no such averment is seen
made in the plaint. In the absence of definite
allegation as to denial of title being made as
required by Section 27(a), the suit valuation as
proposed now cannot be permitted to be newly
introduced by amendment. Court below though failed
to advert to this legal aspect, nevertheless
rightly dismissed the amendment application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
O.P.(C)No.441 of 2021
:-4-:
however, submitted that in the facts of the case,
the issue as to title also arises and unless the
same is determined, the petitioner would be put to
irreparable loss and hardship. It was further
pointed out that the area shown in the suit
schedule also requires to be changed in conformity
with the actual possession for which proposed
corrections in the schedule are to be allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the issue as to title cannot be allowed to be
agitated in the nature of contentions raised by
parties in their pleadings. I am not expressing any
view on merits of the contentions raised by
parties.
9. Suffice to say that if the petitioner
applies for amendment of the plaint, seeking to
incorporate additional relief as to the title to
the plaint property, the same may be considered in
O.P.(C)No.441 of 2021
:-5-:
accordance with law after hearing both parties. I
do not find any reason to interfere with the
instant impugned order.
In the result, the original petition is
disposed of in the light of the observations made
above. Considering the fact that there was already
a direction from this Court for expeditious
disposal of the suit, the learned Munsiff is called
upon to expedite the disposal of the suit within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
All pending interlocutory applications are
closed.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR
JUDGE
ami/
O.P.(C)No.441 of 2021
:-6-:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.
176/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT,
OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 IN
O.S NO. 176/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF
COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE SUPPLEMENT DEFENDANTS 3
AND 4 IN O.S NO. 176/2018 ON THE FILES
OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1
AND 2 IN O.S NO. 176/2018 ON THE FILES
OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF IN I.A NO.
401/2021 IN O.S NO. 176/2018 ON THE
FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P6 T4RUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY 1ST DEFENDANT IN I.A NO.
401/2021 IN O.S NO. 176/2018 ON THE
FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY 3RD DEFENDANT IN I.A NO.
401/2021 IN O.S NO. 176/2018 ON THE
FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06-02-2021
IN I.A NO. 401/2021 IN O.S NO. 176/2018
ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM
O.P.(C)No.441 of 2021
:-7-:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE
