IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 998 of 2010(O)
1. BABU, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTINE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JAYASREE JEEVANKUMAR,
... Respondent
2. GUNA VADHYAR, THEKKANADAYIL,
3. SUSEELA VADHYAR, D/O.YAMUNA BAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.ARUN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :06/12/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No.998 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the claimant in E.A.No.167 of 2009 in E.P.No.151 of 2007 in
O.S.No.796 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha . He
made a claim over the suit property under Rules 97 and 99 of Order XXI of the
Code of Civil Procedure claiming to be a tenant under respondent No.3/judgment
debtor. Pending proceeding, decree holder No.2 expired and thereon petitioner
filed E.A.No.491 of 2010 to implead legal representatives of deceased decree
holder No.2 as additional respondents in E.A.No.167 of 2009. That application
was dismissed on a finding that even before the decree was passed, decree
holder No.2 had assigned his right in the property to respondent No.1/decree
holder No.1 and that decree holder No.2 was impleaded in the suit only as the
assignor.
2. I have heard learned counsel. It is on the specific finding that
decree holder No.2 had no right over the property at the time of death as he had
already assigned it in favour of respondent No.1/decree holder No.1 that
executing court refused to implead legal representatives of deceased decree
holder No.2. There is nothing on record to hold that deceased decree holder
OP(C) No.998/2010
2
No.2 had any right over the property on the date of death so that legal
representatives were required to be impleaded. I do not therefore find reason to
interfere.
Petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks