IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32107 of 2007(V)
1. SUBBAYYAN @ CHOPPAYYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ABDUL WAHAB,
... Respondent
2. K.N. KALYANAKRISHNAN,
3. S. RAJALAKSHMY,
4. O.V. USMANKURIKAL (ADVOCATGE),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
WP(C).No. 32107 OF 2007
............................................
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JUNE, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent, the defendant in
the suit. Suit was originally one for injunction, which was
subsequently amended, claiming declaration that petitioner is
entitled to continue as Manager of the school, and respondents
are not entitled to cause any obstruction. Petitioner filed
I.A.2052 of 2007, an application under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of
Order I of Code of Civil Procedure, to implead additional
defendants 5 to 8, contending that they are legal heirs of
Unnikrishnan, who was the earlier owner of the school, who
appointed petitioner as the Manager. Under Ext.P8 order,
learned Munsiff dismissed the petition, holding that in the nature
of the relief sought for, additional defendants are not to be
impleaded. This petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P8 order.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.
The argument of the learned counsel is that though respondents
2 to 4 claim that they have ownership over the school, they are
not the owners and original owner of the school was Madhavan
WP(C) 32107/2007 2
Nair and his rights vested in his son-in-law as Unnikrishnan
executed a will and subsequently Unnikrishnan died on 5.8.1997
and therefore the proposed defendants being his legal heirs, are
necessary parties to the suit and learned Munsiff should have
impleaded them as sought for.
3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through
Ext.P1 plaint and Ext.P6 petition(copy of I.A.2052 of 2007) and
Ext.P8 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity,
warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this court
under Article 227 of Constitution of India. In the suit, petitioner
did not seek any decree for declaration of the ownership of the
school. He has also not sought a declaration that defendants
have no right over the school or that the ownership vests with
the legal heirs of Unnikrishnan. The decree for declaration
sought for is only the status of the petitioner as Manager of the
school. In such circumstances, legal heirs of Unnikrishnan are
not necessary parties to the suit and learned Munsiff rightly
dismissed the petition.
Writ petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-