IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29467 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.G.LATHA, W/O.SAHADEVAN,B-21,A WING, ROOM NO.101 VASTHU CO;OP HOUSING SOCIETY,AMBADI ROAD,VASAI WEST THANE DISTRICT,MAHARASHTRA STATE REP;BY HER P/A HOLDER M.S.SUMOD,S/O.M.K.SUDHAKARAN MATTATHUKATTIL HOUSE,PONNURUNNI.P.O,VYTILA, POONITHURA VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.G.VIJAYAN, S/O.GOPALAN, KUZHIKKATTIL VEETTIL, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, DISTRICT ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.29467 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor, is also the plaintiff in O.S.No.57 of 2007. The 1st suit is one fore injunction simplicitor and the only one defendant therein is one of her brothers. O.S.No.57 of 2007 is for fixation of boundary in which there are 8 defendants including the sole defendant of O.S.No.6 of 2006. As per I.A.No.2375 of 2008, the petitioner sought joint trial of both the suits. The said petition was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order holding, inter alia, that the evidence in both the suit are not likely to be same so also the cause of action in the two suits and further that O.S.No.57 of 2007 is not ripe for trial since the property has to be measured and the ownership of the plaintiff has to be proved in the suit. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is claiming title over the property as per the settlement deed executed by the father and that the sole defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2006 is not disputing the settlement deed. He also submitted that the subject matter of both the suits is the same and this is a fit case for joint trial. W.P.(c).No.29467 of 2008 2 3. I cannot agree. In O.S.No.6 of 2006 the petitioner need only prove his possession on the date of the suit whether under the settlement deed or otherwise. The court fee he had paid is only under Sec.27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. But in O.S.No.57 of 2007 the petitioner will have to prove his title if he wants a decree for fixation of boundary. There are 8 defendants in that suit and the sole defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2006 is one of those 8 defendants. Apart from the reasons given by the court below there is also a defect in I.A.No.2375 of 2008. He filed the said application without making 7 other defendants in O.S.No.57 of 2007, parties to the application. They were also persons who were vitally interested in the matter and were entitled to notice. For that reason also the court below cannot be faulted in passing Ext.P5 order. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj