IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 547 of 2009(C) --------------------- OS.298/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------------- LIS SEBASTIAN, VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, NASRATHILL.P.O, KURAILANGADU PANCHAYATH, KURAILANGADU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MS.H.SUBHALEKSHMI MR.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------ C.V.PAUL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, CHATHAMKANDAM HOUSE, RAMANGALAM KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. MR.V.M.KURIAN FOR R1 MR.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R1 MR.K.T.THOMAS FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.547 of 2009 - C --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.298 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction. Plaintiff who instituted the suit is no more. Petitioner/defendant is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. On the death of the plaintiff, her husband sought substitution as the additional second plaintiff to continue the prosecution of the suit. That was resisted by the defendant contending that no cause of action survived on the death of the original plaintiff. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides negatived the objections raised and allowed the impleadment sought for. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this revision. 2. Respondent has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Perusing the impugned order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find there is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned C.R.P.No.547 of 2009 - C 2 Munsiff. Suit was filed on the basis of the legal right claimed by the original plaintiff over the property which was scheduled in the plaint. If that right survives to the additional plaintiff he is entitled to come on record and continue the prosecution of the suit. It appears, the second plaintiff claimed title and possession under a will deed which is disputed by the petitioner/defendant. That is a matter, if required, to be resolved in the suit. Suit being one for injunction that alone, what is material is only possession. That question alone need be considered in the nature of the suit. There is no scope for interference with the order. Revision lacks merit, and it is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-