IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).NO. 3926 OF 2011() -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1351/2011 IN OS.56/2009 OF M.C., PARAPPANANGADI PETITIONER: ------------------- RAVIKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.THELATH MATHAVANGATTIL BHAGEERATHI AMMA, PARIYAPURAM AMSOM, ERANAKARANALLUR DESOM, PARIYAPURAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.THELATH MATHAVANGATTIL RADHA AMMA, W/O.P.T.NARAYANANKUTTY, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.MARUTHUR, MARUTHUR AMSOM, THONDIYANNUR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. UMADEVI, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.THELATH MATHAVANGATTIL RADHA AMMA, VALLIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, VALLIKUNNU P.O. 3. LATHA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.THELATH MATHAVANGATTIL RADHA AMMA, W/O.THAZHATHEYIL RAMDAS, VALLIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, VALLIKUNNU P.O. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(C) NO.3926 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.56/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI DATED 4.3.2009 EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.63/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI DATED 28.2.2011. EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING I.A.NO.1351/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.1351/2011 IN O.S.56/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1351/2011 IN O.S. NO.56/2009 IN THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3926 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 07th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Exhibit P5, order dated 25.08.2011 directing joint trial of two suits – O.S. No.56 of 2009 and 63 of 2011 of the court of learned Munsiff, Parappanangadi is under challenge in this original Petition. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No.56 of 2009. That is a suit filed by the respondents for partition of 21 cents in R.S. No.93/13 of Pariyappuram Village which is said to be the subject matter of partition deed No.1417 of 1966 or in the alternative, to enforce a direction contained in that partition deed for payment of certain amount to the tavazhi of respondents. Petitioner claims to be an assignee of 21 cents from one Bhageerathi Amma who got it from an allottee under partition deed No.1417 of 1966. Petitioner, in turn filed O.S. No.63 of 2011 for partition of three items of properties covered by partition deed No.1417 of 1966 and which properties are not brought in for partition in O.S. No.56 of 2009. Petitioner claimed that he was a child in the womb of Bhageerathy Amma who is not a party to partition deed No.1417 O.P(C) No.3926 of 2011 -: 2 :- of 1966. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that properties in both the suits are different, parties are not the same and in the circumstance, joint trial of the suits is not required. Further contention is that in O.S. No.56 of 2009 entire properties are not brought up for partition and at any rate the alternative prayer for payment of the amount is made after 40 years. Hence O.S. No.56 of 2009 is an experimental suit, it is argued. 4. Nature of contentions raised by the respective defendants in both the suits is a different matter. It is not disputed that properties involved in the suits are the subject matter of partition deed No.1417 of 1966. In both the suits the main prayer is for partition of the suit properties. In the circumstances it is only appropriate that both the suits are tried jointly. For consolidation of suits it it not necessary that there must be complete identity of properties or parties. The Supreme Court in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad (2007 [1] KLT 910 (SC) in paragraph [16]) has stated the circumstances under which there could be consolidation of suits. When a common question of law or fact arises in both the suits or the court is satisfied that for any other purpose it is necessary it is O.P(C) No.3926 of 2011 -: 3 :- within the power of the court to order consolidation. Having considered the fact that the properties involved in both the suits are covered by partition deed No.1417 of 1966, I am inclined to think that joint trial of the suits is required. Even after joint trial is ordered it is open to the respective defendant to resist the suits on the contentions raised in their written statement. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the suits are listed for trial on 09.12.2011 and that petitioner may be granted some time to get ready with trial of the suits. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to grant some time. Resultantly, Original Petition is dismissed. But learned Munsiff, Parappanangadi is directed to adjourn trial of O.S. Nos.56 of 2009 and 63 of 2011 to a day after two weeks from 09.12.2011. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv