Geetha Pp vs Aisha P P
2023 Latest Caselaw 6538 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
     TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                      OP(C) NO. 1207 OF 2023
    (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2022 IN I.A.No.8/2022 IN OS
   1388/2017 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT & RENT CONTROLLER,
                            ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS:

    1     GEETHA PP
          AGED 59 YEARS
          W/O KUNJUMON, PULLAMVELIPARAMBU (KAPPAKKATTU) CHUNGATH
          ROAD, IRUMBANAM P.O ,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682301

    2     ANJU C.K
          AGED 33 YEARS
          W/O SUHAS, PULLAMVELIPARAMBU (KAPPAKKATTU), CHUNGATH
          ROAD, IRUMBANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301

          BY ADVS.
          ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA
          MARGARET MAUREEN DROSE
          JAYAKRISHNAN P.R.
          THOMAS GEORGE



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF, 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS:

    1     AISHA P P
          AGED 56 YEARS
          D/O PARAMU, KANDAKOLIL HOUSE, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA
          P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682028

    2     SUHAS
          PULLAMVELIPARAMBU (KAPPAKKATTU), CHUMGATH ROAD,
          IRUMBANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301

    3     ANU
          AGED 38 YEARS
          W/O RAJESH, PULLAMVELIPARAMBU (KAPPAKKATTU), CHUNGATH
          ROAD, IRUMBANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682301
          NOW RESIDING AT CHERIPARAMBIL, AMBALLOOR P.O,
          MULATHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM
 OP(C) NO. 1207 OF 2023                 2




     THIS     OP   (CIVIL)    HAVING       COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
13.06.2023,    THE    COURT    ON   THE      SAME      DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 1207 OF 2023                3



                               JUDGMENT

Ext.P6 order dismissing the application to amend

the written statement is under challenge. The

dispute is pertaining to the property alleged to

have been given by the father during his life time

under a registered settlement to his younger

daughter-the plaintiff in the suit who instituted

the suit for evicting her elder sister from the

property. A written statement was submitted by the

defendant on getting notice. Subsequently, an

amendment application was submitted for

incorporating a pleading to the effect that the

defendant will have the right to get the signature

and thumb impression affixed as that of the deceased

father over the registered settlement deed compared

by expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. In

that amendment application, a counter claim was also

raised challenging the validity of the settlement

deed. Admittedly, the amendment application was

submitted after the expiry of three years from the

date of receipt of the notice of the suit. There is

specific averment in the plaint regarding the

execution of the settlement deed with its number and

the date of execution by the father in favour of the

plaintiff. The contention raised by the defendant is

that though such contention was raised by the

plaintiff in the plaint, they came to know the

execution of the document only when the original

document was produced by the plaintiff before the

court at the stage of trial and thereafter, they

opted to file this amendment application. What is

sought to be incorporated by way of amendment stood

hopelessly barred by limitation as it was filed

after the expiry of three years period from the date

of notice of the present suit and the averments

raised in the suit. Further, there need not be any

pleading with respect to the right to adduce

evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. But

in the present case, since the document is not under

challenge, there is no scope for obtaining an expert

evidence regarding the signature and thumb

impression affixed in the document as that of the

executant and as such, there is no reason for

exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution.

This O.P(C) will stand dismissed in limine.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

LEK

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1207/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE SUIT WAS FILED ON 18-12-2017. TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT NO 1388 OF 2017 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE COURT BELOW

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE OS NO. 1388 OF 2017 BEFORE THE COURT BELOW

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT DEED (MARKED AS A-6), BEARING NO. 996/2017 DATED 12-5-2017

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION BEARING IA NO. 8 OF 2022 IN O.S. NO. 1388 OF 2017 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IS PRODUCED

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT P-4 AMENDMENT APPLICATION BEARING IA NO. 8 OF 2022 IN O.S. NO. 1388 OF 2017 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

Exhibit P6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-12-2022 IN IA NO. 8 OF 2022 IN O.S. NO. 1388 OF 2017 ON THE FILES OF HON'BLE COURT OF THIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM