IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18108 of 2004(E) ---------------------------------------- OS.393/1989 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SAROJINIAMMAL, CHIRAYIL VEETTIL, THEKKEMALA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. MR.SATHISH NINAN MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. PANKAJAKSHIAMMAL, PUNNATHOTTAL VEEDU, KADAPRA, MANNAR MURI,KADAPRA. 2. PARAMESWARAN ACHARI OF -DO- -DO-. 3. PRABHAKARAN ACHARI OF -DO- -DO-. 4. SUBDRAMMAL OF -DO- -DO-. 5. SUSEELAMMAL OF -DO- -DO-. 6. SUDHAMMAL OF -DO- -DO-. 7. THANKAMMAL, THACHEERETH MALAYIL, PULIYOOR MURI, CHENGANNOOR. 8. SARASAMMAL OF -DO-. 9. RAMANI AMMA OF -DO- 10. RADHAKRISHNANI OF -DO-. 11. RAJAN OF-DO-. 12. VENU OF -DO-. W.P.(C) NO.18108/2004 13. ANITHA OF -DO-. 14. GEETHA OF -DO-. 15. MURALEE PUNNATHOTTIL VEEDU, KADAPRA,MANNAR MURI, KADAPRA. 16. RAJAN OF -DO- -DO-. 17. SUDHAKARAN ACHARI OF -DO- -DO-. R1- R7 BY MR.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. MR.THOMAS NINAN . R3 & R12 BY ADVS. MR.THOMAS NINAN, MR.ABRAHAM SAMSON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP.(C) NO.18108/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30.11.93 IN OS. 393/89 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA. 3518/02 IN OS. NO.393/89 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.12.03 IN IA. NO.3518/02 IN OS. NO.393/89 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18108 OF 2004 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Set aside Ext.P3 order in I.A No.3518 of 2002 in O.S No. 393 of 1989 of the Munsiff Court, Adoor. ii) Direct the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla to implead the petitioner as additional 6th defendant in O.S 389 of 1989 pending before that court. iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. W.P.(C).No.18108 OF 2004 Page numbers 2. Petitioner moved an application in the final proceedings of a suit for partition claiming that she too has got right over the properties covered by the suit. That application was turned down by the court holding that there was substantive representation of her interest as other legal heirs of the common predecessor were in the party array. Ext.P3 is the copy of that order. Challenging the propriety and correctness of that order the writ petition is filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 7, 9 and 14 to 17 in the writ petition, and also the materials produced in the petition, I find, the suit for partition was filed W.P.(C).No.18108 OF 2004 Page numbers by the plaintiffs claiming their right based on the custom in their community, that female children given away in kudivayppu form of marriage with Sthreedhanam are not entitled to a share in the family property. From the preliminary decree passed in the suit, admittedly, there was an appeal and second appeal. When final decree proceedings were taken, one among the sisters of the plaintiff, the present petitioner, moved an application for getting herself impleaded in the suit claiming right over the property. That application was dismissed under Ext.P3 order holding that there was substantive representation. At any rate, the reason so stated by the court below cannot be sustained, but, all the same, the entertainability of such an application for impleadment in the final decree is not allowable. Faced with the legal hurdles in prosecuting such an application in final decree proceedings, the learned counsel for the W.P.(C).No.18108 OF 2004 Page numbers petitioner requested that subject to the reserving of the right of the petitioner to claim her right by way of separate suit, the writ petition may be closed. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection in making such reservation, if at all the petitioner have right under law to prosecute her claim in the appropriate forum. 4. Reserving the right of the petitioner to file a suit, if so provided by law, in respect of the claim raised before the court below, before the appropriate forum, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv