IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 24925 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.11011/2009 IN OS.2535/2007 OF I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VARGHESE, S/O.LATE THAIKKADAN VEETTIL OUSEPH, KUTTUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRUSSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. JOSE, S/O.LATE THAIKKADAN VEETTIL OUSEPH, KUTTUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 013. 2. LONAPPAN, S/O.LATE THAIKKADAN VEETTIL OUSEPH, KUTTUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 013. 3. ROSA, D/O.LATE THAIKKADAN VEETTIL OUSEPH, KUTTUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 013, REP.BY HER DAVIS. 4. DAVIS, S/O.LATE THAIKKADAN VEETTIL OUSEPH, KUTTUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 013. 5. SISTER SOOSE M.C., MISSIONARIES OF CHARITY, TABBABOONTT P.O., KARJILING-734 101. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.24925 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Father executed a settlement deed in favour of the son, petitioner and at a time a when he was aged about 85 years, laid the suit for cancellation of that settlement deed on various grounds. Petitioner contended that the father was not in a fit condition to file the suit on account of old age and illness. The father died during pendency of the suit. Remaining legal heirs got themselves impleaded as additional plaintiffs (respondents herein). While so, they filed I.A.No.11011 of 2009 (in O.S. No.2535 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I, Thrissur) to amend the plaint to incorporate a prayer for partition on the strength of a Will allegedly executed by the father. That application was opposed by petitioner on various grounds including that amendment if permitted would alter the nature and character of the suit. Learned Munsiff rejected the objection and allowed the application vide Ext.P5, order which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner has a case that even institution of the suit itself is bad in that the W.P(C) No.24925 of 2010 -: 2 :- father was not in a fit condition to institute the suit on account of old age and illness. On the face of such a contention respondents should not have been permitted to amend the plaint to incorporate a prayer for partition. It is also argued by learned counsel that the Will allegedly executed by the father is attempted to be introduced in the case and it is required to prove execution of the Will which is not subject mater of present suit. 2. I am afraid, contention raised by learned counsel cannot be accepted. True, as originally instituted by the father suit was one for cancellation of settlement deed and consequent relief. But when the father died remaining legal heirs were entitled and did come on record as additional plaintiffs. They have a claim that the father executed a Will in their favour and hence if cancellation deed is set aside petitioner has no right over the property as co-owner in view of the said Will. They therefore sought partition of the property. 3. The very object of amendment is to prevent multiplicity of suits. The Supreme Court in Nichhalbhai v. W.P(C) No.24925 of 2010 -: 3 :- Jaswantlal (AIR 1966 SC 997) has held that amendment is intended to avoid multiplicity of suits and on the fact of that case it was held that it was a proper case in which amendment of plaint should be allowed since otherwise if amendment were disallowed plaintiff had to bring another suit for the relief prayed for by amendment. Here if amendment is not allowed respondents have to file a fresh suit for partition impleading petitioner as a party and claiming right over the property as per the disputed Will. That could be prevented if amendment as prayed for is allowed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court R.Durgaraju v. Dadda Venkataraju (AIR 1979 AP 14) and the Supreme court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. Modi (2006 [3] KLT 192) have taken the view that even subsequent events can be taken into account in considering request for amendment of pleadings. Here amendment was required consequent to the death of the father who instituted the suit. There is nothing illegal in the court below taking into account the subsequent events also and allowing amendment to incorporate appropriate reliefs and averments in the plaint to do justice between parties rather than driving them to file a separate suit. In the light of the principles stated above and on W.P(C) No.24925 of 2010 -: 4 :- the facts of the case I am satisfied that Ext.P5, order is correct and requires no interference. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv