IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 FAO.No. 151 of 2004() ------------------------------- AS.31/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA OS.229/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------------ PUSHPAVENI, W/O.THAYYIL SUBRAMANIAN, & D/O.CHERAMPARAMBIL MANIKKAN, KODAKARA VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.P.A. ANITHA RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS 3 TO 7/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. GANGADHARAN, (DIED), S/O.THAYYIL GOVINDAN, PANANGATTU DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. *2. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.THAYYIL GOVINDAN, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. (*DIED) * THE APPELLANT IS EXEMPTED FROM THE NECESSITY OF SUBSTITUTING THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 11/08/2009 IN I.A.2754/2009. 3. MEENAKSHI, W/O.THAYYIL GANGADHARAN, PANANGATTU DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 4. RAJESH, S/O.THAYYIL GANGADHARAN, DO. DO. 5. JAYASREE, D/O.THAYYIL GANGADHARAN, W/O.EDACHALI BABURAJ, P.O.EDATHIRINJI, KAKKATHURUTHI. 6. SEETHARAM, S/O.THAYYIL SUBRAMANIAN, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 7. THULASI, D/O.THAYYIL SUBRAMANIAN, DO. FAO.No. 151 of 2004 8. GEETHA, W/O.THAYYIL SANTHOSH, DO.DO. 9. SANGEETH, S/O.THAYYIL SANTHOSH, DO. DO. 10. SANGEETHA, D/O.THAYYIL SANTHOSH, DO. DO. R6 BY ADV. MR.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... F.A.O.No. 151 OF 2004 ................................................................................... Dated this the 24th January, 2007 O R D E R This appeal was heard in full. I could have disposed of the appeal on the merits. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the more effective and perpetual solution would be settlement of dispute before the Adalat. 2. The appellant challenges the order of remand. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit for partition. She claimed 1/12th share in the plaint item No.1 and 1/16th share in plaint item No.2. Plaint item No.1 admittedly belonged to Govindan and plaint item No.2 belonged to Kamalamveni. For the convenience, the relationship between the parties is stated as follows: 3. Govindan and Parvathy have three children, viz., Subramanian, Gangadharan and Gopalakrishnan . Subramanian died on 25.02.1994. Gangadharan and Gopalakrishnan are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. F.A.O.No. 151 OF 2004 2 Subramanian married Kamalamveni and in that relationship, three children were born . They are defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and Santhosh. Santhosh died and his legal representatives are defendants Nos. 5 to 7. Kamalamveni pre-deceased Subramanian. The case of the plaintiff is that in 1987, Subramanian married her. There are no issues in that relationship. Subramanian died on 25.02.1994. As regards item No.1, the case of the plaintiff is that after Govindan's death, the property devolved on his widow and children, viz., Parvathy, Subramanian and defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Parvathy executed a will in 1989 bequeathing her share in favour of her children. Thus plaintiff claimed 1/12th share . The defence is that subsequently Parvathy had executed another will in 1994 after the death of Subramanian bequeathing her share in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the children of Subramanian. The trial court accepted this plea of defendants and held that the plaintiff would be entitled to get 1/16th share only in plaint item No.1. As regards item No.2, the trial court held that the plaintiff would be entitled to get 1/16th share. 4. Defendants Nos. 3 to 7 filed an appeal before the appellate court. An application was filed by the defendants for permission to amend the F.A.O.No. 151 OF 2004 3 written statement incorporating the plea that Pushpaveni, the plaintiff was married by Sreedharan several years ago and that marital relationship is subsisting. They also raised a contention that the marriage between Pushpaveni and Subramanian is void since the marital relationship between Pushpavani and Sreedharan was subsisting at that time. After filing the application for amendment of written statement, Pushpaveni filed an Original Petition before the Family Court for declaring her marriage with Sreedharan a nullity. The Family Court allowed that Original Petition. The contention of Pushpaveni is that since the marriage between herself and Sreedharan was declared null and void, her marriage with Subramanian is to be treated as valid. The appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court to consider the request for amendment of the written statement and to allow the parties to adduce evidence . The remand was made since the appellate court thought that it could not entertain additional evidence. 5. In view of the nature of the dispute involved in the case and in view of the relationship between the parties , I am of the view that settlement of the dispute would be ideal. If the remand is upheld there F.A.O.No. 151 OF 2004 4 would be a fresh round of litigation. If the remand is set aside, then also litigation would not end there. It would be ideal for both parties to come to compromise and to settle all their differences including the one involved in the present suit, so that there will be a complete end to all the litigations and disputes . Post before the Adalat. Issue notice to the parties sufficiently in advance. Registry will also issue notice to the counsel appearing for the parties. Issue copy of the order to the counsel on both sides. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk