← Library
High Court of KeralaOP(C)/2593/2015dismissed

T.K.Sarithakumary v. Kamalammal

2015-10-28Honourable Mr. Justice K.Abraham Mathew5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/6TH KARTHIKA, 1937 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 784/2011 of ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, NEYYATTINKARA ---------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------------------

1. T.K.SARITHAKUMARY AGED 48 YEARS D/O. KAMALAMMA, NELLIKKALAVILA VEEDU CHERIYAKOLLA DESOM, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

2. SALIMKUMAR AGED 45 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN NADAR, NELLIKKALAVILA VEEDU CHERIYAKOLLA DESOM, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

3. USHAKUMARY AGED 40 YEARS D/O. KAMALAMMA, SOORAJ BHAVAN, PASUKOTTUKONAM NADOORKOLLA, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.R.B.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. KAMALAMMAL, AGED 70 YEARS D/O. CHINNAMMAL, MATHA BHAVAN, NELLIKKAVALA CHERIYAKOLLA DESOM, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE KARAKKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN-695 002.

2. THANKAYYAN NADAR , AGED 65 YEARS S/O. ARULAPPAN, NEDIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THRESYAPURAM KARAKKONAM, KUNNUTHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKKONAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 002.

3. SATHYADAS S/O. ENOSE NADAR, ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU CHERPANNAKKALA, KARAKKONAM, KUNNUTHUKAL VILLAGE KARAKKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN-695 002.

4. JOHN, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. ENOSE NADAR PUPLIYARATHU KIZHAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAKKONAM KUNNUTHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKKONAM P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 002.

5. LAWRENCE , AGED 51 YEARS S/O. ENOSE NADAR PULIYARATHU KIZHAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAKKONAM KUNNUTHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKKONAM P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 002.

6. FRANCIS , AGED 43 YEARS S/O. ENOSE NADAR, NEDIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAKKONAM KUNNUTHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKKONAM P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 002.

7. JOYCE , AGED 49 YEARS D/O. ENOSE NADAR, NEDIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAKKONAM KUNNUTHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKKONAM P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 002.

8. MARY , AGED 48 YEARS D/O. ENOSE NADAR, NEDIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAKKONAM KUNNUTHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKONAM P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 002.

9. SANTHA , AGED 47 YEARS D/O. ENOSE NADAR, NEDIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAKKONAM KUNNUTHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKONAM P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 002.

10. ALI , AGED 44 YEARS D/O. ENOSE NADAR, NEDIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAKKONAM KUNNUTHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKONAM P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 002.

11. DORUTHY VASANTHAKUMARY , AGED 55 YEARS D/O. ARAYAPPU NADAR, AJITH BHAVAN NEAR KARAKKONAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, KUNNATHUKAL DESOM KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKKONAM P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 002.

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT.P1 : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.784/2011 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, NEYYATTINKARA, DTD.29.8.2011.

EXHIBIT.P2 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA NO.5006/2012 IN OS NO.784/2011 DTD.16.9.2015.

EXHIBIT.P3 : COPY OF THE SAID COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD.19.9.2015. EXHIBIT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.28.9.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, NEYYATTINKARA IN IA NO.5006/2015 IN OS NO.784/2011. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(C).No.2593 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.784 of 2011 of Additional Munsiff Court-I, Neyyattinkara. The suit is for partition of three items of properties. In the course of proceedings in the trial court the petitioners allegedly knew that out of the three items only one item is available for partition. So they filed Ext.P2 application to amend the plaint. It has been dismissed by the trial court as per Ext.P4 order. This is challenged.

2.

Heard.

3.

If two items of properties are not available for partition the petitioners may file a statement before the court or make an endorsement on the plaint that the suit is not pressed so far as those items are concerned. Even that is not necessary as the petitioners rely on a document produced by the 11th defendant showing that two items are not available. The court can take notice of it and hold that those two items are not available for partition and it may pass a decree only in respect of the remaining item. The

O.P.(C).No.2593 of 2015 amendment application was totally unnecessary. The purpose will be served even without an application. In the result, this O.P is dismissed with the above observation.

sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge