IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 27996 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/07/2009 IN IA.1818/2009 IN OS.18/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE VASU, KIZHAKKE PURA, ATHIKKODE, PANAYOOR, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. DAKSHINAMOORTHY, S/O.LATE VASU, KIZHAKKE PURA, ATHIKKODE, PANAYOOR, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALYANI, W/O.VASU, VALARA,NALLEPPILLY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 2. MALLIKA, D/O.VASU, VALARA,NALLEPPILLY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 3. SHOBANA, D/O.VASU, VALARA,NALLEPPILLY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 4. MUTHU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VALARA,VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.315 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.18 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-03-2009 IN C.M.A NO. 129 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF the AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A NO.1818 OF 2009 IN O.S NO. 18 OF 2005. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN I.A NO. 1818 OF 2009 IN O.S NO.18 OF 2005. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF the ORDER DATED 25-07-2009 IN I.A NO.1818 OF 2009 IN O.S NO.18 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27996 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Challenge raised in the writ petition is against the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Chittur turning down the request made by the petitioners for their impleadment as additional parties in a pending suit O.S No. 18 of 2005 which has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3 as plaintiffs. That suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 for evicting the 4th respondent who is stated to be a tenant in occupation of a building. There is dispute between the present petitioners and respondents 1 to 3, the plaintiffs in the above suit, as to their legal status as being the heirs of one late Vasu. Whereas the first respondent/first plaintiff in the above suit claim to be the legally wedded wife of late Vasu, the same claim is raised by the present first petitioner contending that the second petitioner is the son born out of the lawful wedlock of the first petitioner with Vasu. Admittedly these petitioners have preferred a suit for partition in which all items belonging to late Vasu had been included and the W.P.(C).No.27996 OF 2009 Page numbers defendants in that suit are the present respondents 1 to 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits, paternity of second and third respondents as the children of late Vasu out of his relationship with the first respondent is not disputed, but, only the legal status of the first plaintiff as the wife of the late Vasu. That suit for partition is pending before the Sub Court, Palakkad. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint in the suit for partition. Since they have an interest over the suit property covered by O.S No. 18/2005 instituted by the respondents 1 to 3 as plaintiffs, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the present petition was moved seeking their impleadment as additional defendants in the suit. That application was declined by the court below vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in the writ petition. 2. Perusing Ext.P6 order, I find the court below has found that the presence of these petitioners as additional defendants in the present suit was not called for and whatever be the decision rendered in the suit, it is unlikely to affect them in any manner. The relief canvassed W.P.(C).No.27996 OF 2009 Page numbers is only against the 4th respondent, the sole defendant in the suit who is stated to be a tenant of the building under late Vasu. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel is that if a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 in the partition suit, they may set up a special right over that building by virtue of that decree. I do not find any basis for such apprehension. Whatever be the decree passed in the suit. It will be subject to the decision to be rendered in the partition suit, in which, alone the rights of the parties for share over the properties left behind by late Vasu as his legal heirs can be decided upon. Even if a decree is granted in favour of respondents 1 to 3 as against the tenant, it will not anyway impeach the right of the plaintiffs over the property if they are otherwise entitled to that property as legal heirs of late Vasu. No interference with Ext.P6 order passed by the court below is called for. Writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv