Kerala High Court
Mathew Joseph vs Shyla on 17 June, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:43408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
RFA NO. 92 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2021 IN OS NO.50 OF 2020 OF
SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/THIRD PARTY:
MATHEW JOSEPH
AGED 69 YEARS
EDASSERYPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAVETTYKARA, EDAVETTY
P.O., ALAKODEVILLAGE,THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI
DISTRICT., PIN - 685588
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DELWIN B.P.
SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF NOS.1 AND 2 AND DEFENDATNS 1 AND 2:
1 SHYLA
PORUNNEDOM HOUSE, PERINGAZHA KARA, MARADYVILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHATALUK, PERUMBALLOOR P.O,
PIN- 686 673,
REPRESENTED BY SISTER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDERELSY THOMAS, W/O.FRANCIS GEORGE, AGED 64
2025:KER:43408
R.F.A.No.92 of 2023
-: 2 :-
YEARS, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, PERUMBILLICHIRA
KARA, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA
TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685597
2 DANIEL VARGHESE GEORGE
PORUNNEDOM HOUSE, PERINGAZHA KARA, MARADY
VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHATALUK, PIN- 686 673,
REPRESENTED BY SISTER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER ELSY THOMAS, W/O. FRANCIS GEORGE, AGED
64 YEARS, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, PERUMBILLICHIRA
KARA, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA
TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685597
3 DEEPA MARY XAVIER
PORUNNEDOM HOUSE, PERINGAZHA KARA, MARADY
VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHATALUK, PERUMBALLOOR,
PIN - 686673
4 THOMAS @ TOMY
PORUNNEDOM HOUSE, PERINGAZHA KARA, MARADY
VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHATALUK, PERUMBALLOOR,
PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.B.PRADEEP
SRI.JITHIN BABU A
SHRI.HARISANKAR R
SHRI.ARUN SAMUEL
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:43408
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A.No.92 of 2023
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
This appeal is by a third party to the suit, having
obtained leave of this Court to maintain the appeal. The
appeal is filed challenging the decree in a suit for
partition. This appeal is confined to the plaint E schedule
- Bank deposits.
2. The suit for partition is between the wife and the
children of late Wilson Porunnedom George. The suit was
filed by the widow and the minor son as plaintiffs against
the major children. The plaint consists of A to E schedules,
out of which A to D are immovable properties. On 20.10.2021,
the suit was decreed on compromise. As per the decree, the
plaint E schedule Bank deposits were allotted in favour of
2025:KER:43408
the 1st plaintiff.
3. The appellant is the brother-in-law of late Wilson
Porunnedom George(sister's husband). The appellant's claim
is that, Sri.Wilson Porunnedom George had executed a Will
dated 14.07.2019 bequeathing the Bank deposits described in
the plaint E schedule to him. Though the parties to the suit
were aware of the same, the suit was instituted and a decree
was obtained without arraying him as party. The decree,
insofar as it relates to the plaint E schedule property, is
liable to be set aside, is the contention.
4. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
5. The point that arises for determination is: -
"Are the plaint E schedule deposits liable to be partitioned between the
plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2?
6. O.S.No.79 of 2020 on the files of the Munsiff
Court, Muvattupuzha was a suit by the plaintiffs and
defendants in the present suit against the present appellant
and the State Bank of India and Canara Bank as defendants.
2025:KER:43408
The relief sought for therein was for a prohibitory
injunction against the disbursal of the deposits (present E
schedule) of late Wilson Porunnedom George with the Banks,
to the appellant herein. After the filing of the written
statement therein by the present appellant, the said suit
was withdrawn. Therefore, evidently, the parties to the
present suit were aware of the claim of the present
appellant over the plaint E schedule deposits with the
Banks. In spite of the same, the present suit for partition
was filed including the plaint E schedule and without the
appellant being impleaded as a party. The mother and the
minor son has arrayed the other children as defendants. The
suit was settled and a compromise decree passed including
the plaint E schedule deposits. As noticed, the appellant
claims right over the deposits, under a Will dated
14.07.2019, allegedly, executed by late Wilson Porunnedom
George.
7. On the facts as noticed above, we find that the
2025:KER:43408
appellant is a necessary party to the suit, whose rights
would be directly affected by the decree in the suit. The
appellant is liable to be impleaded as an additional
defendant and be permitted to urge his contention with
regard to the plaint E schedule. The decree and judgment
insofar as it relates to the plaint E schedule deposits is
thus, liable to be set aside.
8. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The decree and
judgment of the trial court, insofar as it relates to the
plaint E schedule deposits, is set aside. The appellant will
stand impleaded as additional 3rd defendant in the suit. He
shall be given an opportunity to file written statement. If
the other parties to the suit seek for an opportunity to
file further pleading, the same shall be granted. All the
parties shall be afforded opportunity to adduce evidence. A
supplemental preliminary decree shall be passed in respect
of the plaint E schedule deposits after trial.
9. The Court shall, on request by the parties, direct
2025:KER:43408
the E schedule deposits to be maintained in the respective
Banks in Fixed Deposits enabling accrual of interest
thereon.
Parties to appear before the trial court on 02.07.2025.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
