IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 25785 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- (I.A. NO.5056 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.1738 OF 2008, SECOND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RAKESH G NAIR S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 24 HARISREE, PAZHAVEEDU, PERUKAVU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. KRISHNAN NAIR PAZHAVEEDU, PERUKAVU PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR PAZHAVEEDU, PERUKAVU PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR GAYATHRI VIHAR, KALLINGAL VILAKOM PERUKAVU PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RAHUL, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR PACHAVEEDU, PERUKAVU PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. AJAYADAS S.V.NIVAS, ERAVILA, PERUKAVU PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. PRAVEEDN, PRAVEEN BHAVAN, AGASTHYAVILA, PERUKAVU PO, TRIVANDRUM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) NO.25785 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner sued respondents, initially for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain the latter from trespassing into the suit property or obstructing his workers engaged in work in the said property. Respondents claimed that suit property is puramboke land. In view of that contention plaint was amended to incorporate a prayer for declaration of title over the suit property. While so petitioner transferred 3.50 cents from the suit property to his brother. The brother was impleaded as additional plaintiff No.2 as per order dated 17.07.2010. Thereafter petitioner filed I.A. No.5056 of 2010 (in O.S. No. 1738 of 2008 of the court of learned additional Munsiff-II, Thiruvananthapuram) for amendment of the plaint, according to the petitioner consequent to the impleadment. The amendment sought for is to bifurcate the suit property into A and B schedules consequent to the sale of 3.50 cents in favour of additional plaintiff No.2 and also to make appropriate amendments in the body of the plaint. That application was disallowed by the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P5, W.P(C) No.25785 of 2010 -: 2 :- order which is under challenge. Learned counsel contends that dismissal of Ext.P3, application is not proper and unless the plaint is amended it might create inconvenience and difficulties in the course of execution if the suit is decreed in favour of petitioner and additional plaintiff No.2. 2. It is not disputed that transfer of 3.50 cents out of the suit property in favour of brother of petitioner was pending suit. Even without impleadment of the transferee it was competent for petitioner to proceed with the suit. Court below has permitted the transferee to come on record as additional plaintiff. Question is whether amendment as prayed for is required. There is no case that there is any dispute between petitioner and additional plaintiff No.2 as regards respective portions of the property allegedly belonging to them. As such a bifurcation of suit property between petitioner and additional plaintiff No.2 is not necessary in this suit. There is nothing wrong in petitioner and additional plaintiff No.2 seeking declaration of title in respect of the entire suit property in their favour. Even without an amendment it is open to the learned Munsiff to take into account subsequent events (transfer of 3.50 cents in favour of additional plaintiff No.2) and mould the relief of declaration accordingly. It W.P(C) No.25785 of 2010 -: 3 :- is not required that amendment of the nature sought for is to be made in the plaint since as I stated there is no inter se dispute between petitioner and additional plaintiff No.2 and at any rate required to be resolved in the present suit. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to think that ultimate order dismissing Ext.P3 suffers from any illegality or irregularity. Resultantly Writ Petition is disposed of with the observation I have made as to the power of court to mould relief in favour of petitioner and additional plaintiff No.2 taking into account sale of a portion of the suit property in favour of the latter in case petitioner and additional plaintiff No.2 are found entitled to the reliefs prayed for. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv