IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 422 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/03/2008 IN IA.8062/07 IN IA.4692/04 IN OS.144/2002 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.PRAKASH, S/O SREEDEVI AMMA, KANDOTH HOUSE, PUTHUSSERI DESOM, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDNTS:- -------------------------------------- 1. JANAKI AMMA (LATE), KANDOTH MADHAVI AMMA, RATHNA VIHAR, PUTHUSSERY,CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. PRASANNA, AMBALATH VEEDU, RAMANANDAPURAM DESOM, PALAKKAD VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. PRADEEP KUMAR, RATHANAVIHAR, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER FOR R2 SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN FOR R2 SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R3 SRI.S.SREEDEV FOR R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.422 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 ORDER The order dated 17th March 2008 in I.A.No.8062/07 in I.A.No.4692/04 in O.S.No.144/02 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge of Thrissur is under challenge in this Revision Petition by Prakash, who sought to get himself impleaded and whose request was turned down by the court below. 2. The suit was filed by the second respondent Prasanna against the third respondent Pradeep Kumar. The plaintiff is the sister of the defendant. The suit was filed for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule house. According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to her mother Janaki @ Sreedevi Amma. The mother sold the property to the plaintiff as per a registered sale deed executed in the year 1995. 3. During the pendency of the suit, Janaki @ Sreedevi Amma, the mother, filed I.A.No.4692/04 to get herself impleaded as additional defendant. That application was allowed by the court below by a cryptic order “Heard. I.A. allowed.” That order CRP 422 /2008 2 was challenged by the plaintiff in C.R.P.No.1014/2005. During the pendency of the said Revision Petition, the mother died. C.R.P.No.1014/05 was disposed of by the order dated 16th November 2007 holding that the order allowing the impleadment was not properly passed. However, taking note of the demise of the mother, the lower court was directed to consider the question afresh and to dispose of the application which any of the legal representatives of Janaki @ Sreedevi Amma may file, so as to continue to prosecute I.A.No.4692/04. 4. Thereafter, Prakash, the Revision Petitioner, who is the son of Janaki @ Sreedevi Amma, filed I.A.No.8062/07 to get himself impleaded in the suit as a legal representative of Janaki @ Sreedevi Amma. The court below by the order impugned dismissed the application. 5. The mother had raised the contention in I.A.No.4692 of 2004 that she came to know of document No.620 of 1995 only recently. She contended that she has not executed any such document in favour of the plaintiff. The document is not supported by any consideration. It was also stated that for the purpose of getting a loan, the plaintiff requested the mother to CRP 422 /2008 3 execute a document of mortgage in respect of the property and for that purpose she was taken to the Registrar’s office. Later, she came to know that instead of a mortgage deed, a sale deed was got executed in favour of the plaintiff. She contended that the plaintiff did not get any title to the property. The mother also stated that steps were being taken to cancel the document. 6. Later, it would appear that the mother executed a cancellation deed. It is also contended by the petitioner that the mother executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendant. 7. Going by the pleadings, the averments in I.A.No.4692/04 and the contentions put forward in I.A.No.8062/07, the following facts are clear. The property belonged to the mother. There is a document styled as sale deed executed by the mother in favour of the plaintiff. The mother says that she did not execute that document. That document, however, is not cancelled by resorting to any legal proceeding. Even according to the petitioner, he does not have any right in the property. According to him, the mother had executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendant. The mother filed the application for impleading on 15.10.2004. By that time, she had CRP 422 /2008 4 executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendant on 30.7.2004, after cancelling the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. So, even going by the case put forward by the mother, she had no title to the property on the date on which she filed the application for impleading. The petitioner, who sought to get himself impleaded, does not have a case that he has any right or title over the property. He also concedes the title of the defendant. Therefore, the court below was right in holding that the presence of the petitioner is not necessary for just and proper disposal of the suit. 8. A person who is not a party to the suit can be impleaded by the court under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the court is satisfied that such impleadment is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit. Here, even according to the petitioner, there is no such question to be adjudicated upon between him and the plaintiff or between him and the defendant. Therefore, for the purpose of granting or refusing the relief in the plaint, the presence of the petitioner is not required. The mother also had no right in the property, even according her, on CRP 422 /2008 5 the date of filing of application for impleadment. Therefore, as a legal representative of the deceased mother, the petitioner cannot claim any such right which his mother did not put forward. 9. I am of the view that the court below was right in holding that the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. No interference is called for. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl