IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 992 of 2011(O) ------------------------ I.A.NO.7805/10 IN OS.590/2010 AND I.A.NO.7186/2010 IN O.S.NO.1245/07 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- RENEESH DANIEL, S/O. DANIEL, MARIYAPURAM ARCH ROAD, KUTTANELLUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL), SMT.R.RAJITHA. RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. RAVUNNY,S/O. KUNNATHULLY VELAYUDHAN, MUDIKKODE DESOM,PANANCHERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. PIN-680 018. * 2. THANKAMMA, W/O. KUNNATHULLY CHANDRAN, MUDIKKODE DESOM,PANANCHERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. PIN-680 018. (DELETED) * 3. SIVADASAN, S/O. KUNNATHULLY CHANDRAN, MUDIKKODE DESOM,PANANCHERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. PIN-680018.(DELETED) *4. SURENDRAN, S/O. KUNNATHULLY CHANDRAN, MUDIKKODE DESOM,PANANCHERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. PIN-680 018. (DELETED) * 5. SUBHASH, S/O. KUNNATHULLY CHANDRAN, MUDIKKODE DESOM,PANANCHERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. PIN-680 018. (DELETED) Kss ..2/- ..2.... OPC.NO.992/2011 O * 6. OMANA, D/O. KUNNATHULLY CHANDRAN, MUDIKKODE DESOM,PANANCHERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. PIN-680018. (DELETED) * 7. USHA, D/O. KUNNATHULLY CHANDRAN, MUDIKKODE DESOM,PANANCHERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. PIN-680 018. (DELETED) 8. ALICE, W/O. KODIYAN ANTHONY, NELLANKARA DESOM, PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK-680 018. 9. THE SPEICAL TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001. 10. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001. 11. JOFFY ANTONY, S/O. KODIYAN ANTHONY, NELLANKARA DESOM, PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 018. (*RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 ARE DELETED FROM THE ORIGINAL PETITION (CIVIL) AS PER ORDER DTD. 09/08/2011 IN I.A.NO.13201/2011) R1 BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.992/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.1792/03 OF IIND ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.1245/07 OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR. P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 1, 5 & 6. P4: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 8TH DEFENDANT. P5: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.590/10 IN PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR. P6: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT BY 1ST DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.590/10. P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A.7805/10 IN O.S.590/2010. P8: COPY OF APPLICATION IN I.A.7805/10 IN O.S.590/2010. P9: COPY OF COMMON ORDER DTD. 24/11/2010 IN O.S.590/10 & O.S.1245/07. P10: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.1439/09 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. P11: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.1439/09 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. P12: COPY OF THE T.O.P.NO.278/2010 BEFORE THE DIST.COURT,THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.992 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 09th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since respondents 2 to 7 remained ex parte in the court below, their junction is not required in this proceeding, they may be deleted from the array of parties and that application for the purpose is being filed. The request is allowed and respondents 2 to 7 are deleted from the party array. 2. The dispute concerns 10cents of land in R.S.No.62/4 of Panancherry village in respect of which two purchase certificates have been issued, one in favour of the late Chandran, husband of second respondent and the other, in favour of the said Chandran, his brother (first respondent) and their deceased sister, Ammu. First respondent filed O.S.No.1792 of 2003 against respondents 2 and 10 in the Court of learned Second Additional Munsiff, Thrissur to set aside the purchase certificate issued in favour of Chandran. That suit ended in a decree. In the meantime, respondents 2 to 7 claiming right under the purchase certificate in favour of Chandran, assigned property to the 8th respondent and ultimately it reached petitioner as per sale deed O.P(C).No.992 of 2011 -: 2 :- No.3797 of 2008. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.590 of 2010 in the Court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur for a declaration that the decree in O.S.No.1792 of 2003 is void having been obtained fraudulently. While so, first respondent has filed O.S.No.1245 of 2007 for cancellation of the sale deed executed by respondents 2 to 7 in favour of the 8th respondent (concerning the property which ultimately petitioner claims as per document No.3797 of 2008). I am told that petitioner has also filed O.S.No.1439 of 2009 in the Court of learned First Additional Munsiff, Thrissur against the first respondent to restrain the latter from constructing building in the suit property and that suit has been transferred to the Court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur as per order of learned District Judge, Thrissur in T.O.P.No.278 of 2010. Petitioner wanted O.S.Nos.1245 of 2007 and 590 of 2010 to be tried and disposed of jointly since common question of law and facts are involved and accordingly filed I.A.Nos.7186 of 2010 in O.S.No.1245 of 2007 and I.A.No.7805 of 2010 in O.S.No.590 of 2010. Those applications were dismissed by the learned Principal Sub Judge holding that there is no identity of parties. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that since the dispute in all the cases concerns title over 10 cents in R.S.No.62/4 and the validity of purchase certificates referred above as well as validity of the O.P(C).No.992 of 2011 -: 3 :- decree in O.S.No.1792 of 2003, it is necessary, to avoid conflicting findings that the suits are tried and disposed of jointly. It is submitted by learned counsel that the finding that trial court may enter regarding validity of the decree in O.S.No.1792 of 2003 may have a bearing in all the suits in the matter of reliefs prayed for. I have heard learned counsel for first respondent as well. 3. The mere fact that all the parties in the suits are not the same by itself is no ground to refuse a joint trial. As aforesaid, dispute concerns 10cents of land over which there are two purchase certificates, one in favour of Chandran personally and the other in favour of the said Chandran, his brother (first respondent) and their deceased sister. The purchase certificate in favour of Chandran was cancelled as per decree in O.S.No.1792 of 2003. Petitioner traces title to the purchase certificate in favour of Chandran. Therefore it appears to me that validity of the decree in O.S.No.1792 of 2003 has a bearing on the reliefs to be granted in all the three suits. In Prem Lala Nahata Vs. Chandi Prasad ((2007)1 KLT 910) the Supreme Court has pointed out in paragraph 16 that Court has power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are by order of the Court combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The O.P(C).No.992 of 2011 -: 4 :- main purpose of consolidation is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the Court and it appears to the Court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. Viewed in the light of the above decision, I am inclined to think that a joint trial of the three suits is necessary. Resultantly this original petition is allowed. Ext.P9, order is set aside and I.A.No.7805 of 2010 in O.S.No.590 of 2010 and I.A.No.7186 of 2010 in O.S.No.1245 of 2007 will stand allowed. Learned Principal Sub Judge is directed to try and dispose of jointly O.S.Nos.1245 of 2007 and 590 of 2010 (and O.S.No.1439 of 2009 of the Court of learned First Additional Munsiff, Thrissur transferred to that Court as per order of learned District Judge, Thrissur in T.O.P.No.278 of 2010). Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-