IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2552 of 2011(O) --------------------------------- OS.147/2011 of MUN-MAGI COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------- SEETHA VIJAYAN,W/O.VIJAYASEKHARANPILLAI, AGED 44 YEARS,ATTURAZHIKATHU,KRINTHOTTUVA, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE,KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ADDL.5TH DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------ KAMALAKSHI AMMA,ATTURAZHIKATHU KALEELIL, KRINTHOTTUVA,SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 671 171. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs O.P.(C). NO. 2552/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE OS. NO.147/2011 P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.600/2011. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER I.A. NO.665/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2552 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in O.S.No.147 of 2011 of the court of learned Munsiff, Sasthamcotta is the petitioner, challenging Ext.P3, order impleading respondent as additional 5th defendant in the suit. That is a suit filed by the petitioner for and on behalf of her husband, 4th defendant who is working abroad seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the suit property. Respondent filed I.A. No.665 of 2011 to implead her as additional 5th defendant contending that she had executed settlement deed No.3201 of 2008 in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of the suit property reserving a life interest. She is residing in the building in the suit property. Later she cancelled the settlement deed as per document No.3727 of 2010 and thus continues to be the absolute owner in possession of the property. Having regard to that contentions raised, learned Munsiff allowed the application as per Ext.P3, order and impleaded the respondent as additional 5th defendant. The said order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner O.P(C) No.2552 of 2011 -: 2 :- contended that respondent is not a proper or necessary party to the suit. 2. I am unable to accept the said contention. Question whether cancellation of the settlement deed is valid or not is a matter which the trial court has to decide. That question cannot be decided in this proceeding. Respondent has a contention that she has validly cancelled the settlement deed and thus continues to be the owner in possession of the property. In that situation presence of respondent is necessary and proper for an effective adjudication of the dispute. Original Petition fails and is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv