IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3849 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- OS.287/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG ................................................................................. PETITIONERS -------------------- 1. P.V. MADHAVAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE KALLYANI, REP. BY HIS P/A. P.V.RAJENDRAKUMAR, AGED 36,S/O. LATE KARUNAKARAN RESIDING AT PALLIPAVALAPPIL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD JUNCTION, HOSDURG VILLAGE AND TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. P. JANAKI, AGED 68 YEARS D/O. LATE KALLYANI, RESIDING AT KARATTUVAYAL,BALLA VILLAGE, P.O.KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TLAUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, 4. PAVITHRAN, AGED 49 YEARS, 5. SASIKALA, AGED 47 YEARS, 6. VENUGOPALAN, AGED 41 YEARS, 7. PREMALATHA, AGED 39 YEARS, (PETITIONERS 3 TO 7 ARE CHILDREN OF P.JANAKI.(2ND) PETITIONERS 3 TO 6 ARE REP. BY THEIR P/A. HOLDER AND MOTHER P.JANAKI. PETITIONERS 3 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT KARATTUVAYAL, BALLA VILLAGE. P.O.KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK). 8. P.V. BALAMANI, AGED 42 YEARS, 9. BABY, AGED 39 YEARS, 10. SUKUMARAN, AGED 37 YEARS, 11. BHASKARAN, AGED 35 YEARS, OP(C).No. 3849 of 2011(O) 12. RAJU, AGED 33 YEARS,(PETITIONERS 8 TO 12 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE NARAYANI. PETITIONERS 8 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT KUSHAL NAGAR, HOSDURG VILLAGE,AND TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT). 13. KUMARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, 14. ROHINI, AGED 44 YEARS, 15. KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 41 YEARS, (PETITIONERS 13 TO 15 ARE CHILDREN OF P.V. CHIRUTHAKUNHI, AND ARE RESIDING AT NEAR A.K.G CLUB, KOVVAL, HOSDURG VILLAGE AND TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT). 16. SHANTHAKUMARI, AGED 45 YEARS, 17. LAKSHMANAN ALIAS RATHNAKARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, 18. RAJAN, AGED 39 YEARS, (PETITIONERS 16 TO 18 ARE CHILDREN OF SAROJINI AND ARE RESIDING AT KUSHALNAGAR, HOSDURG VILLAGE AND TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT) 19. PUSHPALATHA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. P.V. LAKSHMI, RESIDING AT THEERTHANKARA NILESHWAR VILLAGE, P.O. PADANNAKKAD, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.A.DINESH RAO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T. KUNHIKANNAN(DEAD) 2. KUNHIPENNU, AGED 80 YEARS, 3. K.KRISHNAN, AGED 77 YEARS, 4. T. GANAPATHY, AGED 71 YEARS, 5. SAROJINI, AGED 65 YEARS, 6. T. CHINTHAMANI, AGED 60 YEARS, (RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE VELLACHI, AND ARE RESIDING AT 'AMULYA',NITTADUKKAM, HOSDURG VILLAGE AND TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT) OP(C).No. 3849 of 2011(O) 7. SHYMALA MADHAVAN, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT 'AMULYA', NITTADUKKAM, HOSDURG VILLAGE AND TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. P. KRISHNAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. LATE KALLYANI, RESIDING AT NITTADUKKAM, HOSDURG VILLAGE AND TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. P.V. LAKSHMI, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O. LATE KALLYANI, RESIDING AT THREETHANKARA, P.O.PADANNAKKAD, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 10. P.V. NARAYANI, AGED 82 YEARS, 11. P.V. CHIRUTHAKUNHI, AGED 76 YEARS, (RESPONDENTS 10 AND 11 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE KOTHAMBARI KARICHI, RESIDING AT NEAR A.K.G. CLUB, KOVVAL, HOSDURG VILLAGE AND TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT) 12. RADHA, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O. P.V. CHIRUTHAKUNHI, RESIDING AT NEAR A.K.G. CLUB, KOVVAL, HOSDURG VILLAGE AND TALUK, P.O. KNAHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 13. MOHANAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. P.V. LAKSHMI, RESIDING AT THEERTHANKARA, PADANNAKKAD, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 14. P.VIMALA, AGED 84 YEARS, W/O. LATE LATE T. KUNHIKANNAN, 15. A. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 63 YEARS, 16. A. JAYARAJAN, AGED 54 YEARS 17. A. VENUGOPALAN, AGED 52 YEARS, 18. A. HARIDAS, AGED 43 YEARS, 19. A. SASIKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, (RESPONDENTS 15 TO 19 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE T. KUNHIKANNAN, AND ARE RESIDING AT 'VIJAYAVIHAR' HOSDURG TALUK AND VILLAGE, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG OP(C).No. 3849 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT P1 - COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.287/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, HOSDURG. EXT P2A - COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.351/2004 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDURG. EXT P3A - COPY OF THE ISSUES DRAFTED BY THE COURT BELOW EXT P4A - COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.114/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDURG EXT P5A - COPY OF THE ISSUES DRAFTED BY THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT EXT P6A - TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.330/2005 ON THE FILE OF MUNIFF COURT,HOSDURG. EXT P7A - COPY OF IA NO.2356/2010 IN OS NO.114/2005 EXT P8A - COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN OS NO.351/2004 EXT P9A - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/9/2011 IN IA 2356/2010 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3849 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Plaintiffs in O.S. No.114 of 2005 of the court of learned Munsiff, Hosdurg challenge Ext.P9, order on I.A. No.2356 of 2010. According to the petitioners a decree for partition was passed in O.S. No.9 of 1967 as early as 24.09.1998 and thereafter there was a number of litigations concerning the whole or portion of the property covered by O.S. No.9 of 1967 between parties or involving their properties. There are four suits – O.S. No.287 of 2004, 351 of 2004, 114 of 2005 and 330 of 2005, all of the court of learned Munsiff, Hosdurg. For a joint trial of those suits, petitioner filed I.A. No.1203 of 2006 in O.S. No.114 of 2005 and obtained a favourable order on 12.07.006. Later petitioners filed I.A. No.2356 of 2010 in O.S. No.114 of 2005 to delink O.S. No.351 of 2004 as trial of that suit is being dragged on. Learned Munsiff rejected that application by Ext.P9, order observing that so far as order dated 12.07.2006 on I.A. No.1203 of 2006 in O.S. No.114 of 2005 stands, question of delinking of O.S. No.351 of 2004 does not arise. O.P(C) No.3849 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Learned counsel has stated before me the difficulties being experienced by petitioners on account of O.S. No.351 of 2004 not being disposed of. 3. I must bear in mind that it was on the request of petitioners on I.A. No.1203 of 2006 that joint trial of the suits was ordered. So far as that order stands, the request to delink O.S. No.351 of 2004 as prayed for in I.A. No.2356 of 2010 would amount to a review of the order dated 12.07.2006 on I.A. No.1203 of 2006. May be joint trial and delinking of cases are matters of procedure but so far as the order on I.A. No.1203 of 2006 stands, learned Munsiff could not have directed to delink O.S. No.351 of 2004. I do not find reason to interfere. 4. Having regard to the difficulties of petitioners stated by learned counsel, learned Munsiff is directed to expedite the proceedings so that the suits could be tried and disposed of as early as possible of course after completing all preliminary steps. Original Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv