IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 1262 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/11/2010 IN IA 1741/2009 IN OS.295/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. ABDUL LATHEEF VAIDYAN AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN VAIDYAN,ANAKKARANTAYYATHU, MANAPALLI MURI, CHAVARA.P.O. 2. ALIYARU KUNJU, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. HYDROS KUNJU, ANAKKARANTAYYATHU, MANAPALLI MURI, CHAVARA.P.O. 3. YONUS KUNJU VAIDYAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RASSAQ VAIDYAN, ANAKKARANTAYYATHU, MANAPALLI MURI, CHAVARA.P.O. 4. A. MUHAMMAD KUNJU AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RASSAQ VAIDYAN, ANAKKARANTAYYATHU, MANAPALLI MURI, CHAVARA.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. M.SHAHUL HAMEED ASAN, AGED 56 YEARS, PUTHONVEETTITHEKATHIL, ANAKKARANTAYYATHU, MANAPALLI MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, CHAVARA P O KOLLAM DISTRICT-691583 2. SUHARBAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PUTHONVEETTILTHEKAKTHIL, ANAKKARANTAYYATHU, MANAPALLI MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, CHAVARA P O KOLLAM DISTRICT-691583 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.1262 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiffs in O.S.No.295 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Karunagappally are the petitioners challenging Ext.P5, order refusing to implead 3rd parties as additional defendants in the suit. Petitioners sued for a declaration that family name 'Anakkarantayyathu' exclusively belong to them and for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents/defendants from using the said family name. Respondents filed Ext.P2, written statement contending that even as per records kept with the Mahal Jama-ath of the locality, family name of respondents is shown as 'Anakkarantayyathu'. In view of that contention, petitioners filed Ext.P3, application to implead office bearers of Mahal Jama-ath as additional defendants as per Rule 10(2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) alleging that Mahal Jama-ath has fabricated documents to help the respondents. Ext.P3, application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff by Ext.P5, order which is under challenge. It is contended that officials of the Mahal Jama-ath are necessary or atleast proper parties to the suit to get effective decree as prayed O.P(C).No.1262 of 2010 : 2 : for by petitioners. Otherwise, even if a decree is obtained by petitioners Mahal Jama-ath may not be bound by the said decree and decree become effectless. It is contended by learned counsel that learned Munsiff has dismissed the application by a non speaking order. 2. Learned Munsiff has stated in Ext.P5, that the parties sought to be impleaded are neither necessary nor proper parties to decide the dispute and hence the application is dismissed. True, learned Munsiff has not explained how the parties sought to be impleaded are either not necessary or proper parties but learned Munsiff has found that they are neither necessary nor proper parties and dismissed the application. I shall advert to the arguments advanced by learned counsel. It is true that in Ext.P2, written statement respondents stated that in the records maintained by the Mahal Jama-ath their family name is stated as 'Anakkarantayyathu'. It is also true that Ext.P3, application alleges that the said documents were fabricated by the officials of Mahal Jama-ath to help the respondents. But, I am unable to accept the contention that officials of the Mahal Jama-ath are necessary or proper parties to this litigation. The controversy involved in the suit is something between petitioners and O.P(C).No.1262 of 2010 : 3 : respondents/defendants as to whether family name, 'Anakkarantayyathu' exclusively belongs to the petitioners or, respondents are also entitled to use it. The mere fact that family name of respondents is entered as 'Anakkarantayyathu' in the records of Mahal Jama-ath is not by itself reason to think that they are necessary or proper parties to the litigation. In Skaria Joseph Vs. Eliyamma Joseph (1996(2) KLT 295) this court stated who are necessary or proper parties to the litigation. It is stated that, “A necessary party is one without whom no decree can be made effectively. A person may be impleaded as a defendant in the suit, though no relief may be claimed against him, if his presence is necessary for a complete and final adjudication of the questions involved in the suit. Normally, the questions involved in a suit are those which arise between the parties to the suit. Only a person who has direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation, whether it raises questions relating to movable or immovable property, can however, be impleaded as a party. The court had no jurisdiction to add a person as a party to the litigation if he had no legal interest in the issue involved in the case.” O.P(C).No.1262 of 2010 : 4 : 3. If the argument of petitioners is accepted, then I have to think that every institution or establishment where family name of respondents is shown as 'Anakkarantayyathu' must be impleaded as defendants in the suit. Such a situation is not contemplated under law. As I stated, the dispute is between petitioners and respondents and is to be resolved among them. It is not as if Mahal Jama-ath is the institution which has conferred family name of 'Anakkarantayyathu' to the respondents and hence they are required to be made parties. If petitioners have a contention that entries in the records maintained by the Mahal Jama-ath are fabricated, there are other ways by which petitioners can prove the same by summoning witnesses and proving their allegation that records are fabricated to help the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason to interfere with the finding of learned Munsiff that parties sought to be impleaded as additional defendants are neither necessary nor proper parties. This petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-