IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35715 of 2008(B)
1. JANAMMA, AGED 90 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. G.RAJAPPAN,T.C. 8/101,
... Respondent
2. HARIHARAN T. T.C. 2/209,
3. RAMACHANDRAN, TC 2/209,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.SAJEEV
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :03/12/2008
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C)No.35715 of 2008 B
--------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a prospective plaintiff, who
wanted to institute a suit for partition before the
Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The first
respondent and the petitioner are stated to be the
children of Kali Chakki of Pottakuzhi Veedu,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram and respondents 2 and 3
are stated to be the children of Bhargavi, the
deceased sister of the petitioner and the first
respondent.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the
petitioner that properties were obtained by the
mother of the petitioner and the first respondent
and the maternal grandmother of respondents 2 and 3
under Partition Deed No.48 of 1102 M.E.; that for
the purpose of institution of the suit, she applied
for a copy of the said partition deed, but she
received Exhibit P2 reply from the Sub Registrar’s
WPC 35715/08 2
Office to the effect that the register containing
the said document has got deteriorated on account
of aging and therefore, they are unable to issue
copy of the said document; that therefore, the suit
was filed obtaining a photostat copy of an attested
copy of the document which had been produced by
members of some other sakha in O.S.No.1023/04,
instituted before the Munsiff’s court,
Thiruvananthapuram claiming right over an item of
property involved in the said partition deed, but
that the plaint has been returned vide Exhibit P4
order passed on I.A.No. 8786/08 for the reason that
an authentic copy of Partition Deed No.48 of 1102
M.E. is not produced and that therefore,
appropriate direction be issued in the matter
quashing Exhibit P4 order and to redress the
grievance of the petitioner.
3. The order passed on Exhibit P4 order by the
learned Munsiff is extracted below:
WPC 35715/08 3
“Suit document is the settlement
deed. Hence not allowed. Produce
an admissible copy of the
document.”
4. What is intended by the above order is not
discernible, though the counsel submits that it is
an order refusing to receive the plaint, except
with an authentic copy of the title document, which
is Partition Deed No.48 of 1102 M.E. The submission
of the counsel appears to be true on seeing the
prayer in Exhibit P3. If Exhibit P4 is an order
passed on Exhibit P3, it cannot be sustained in the
circumstances of the case. The suit is one for
partition. Petitioner/plaintiff claims title
thereto under Partition Deed No.48 of 1102 M.E. of
Sub Registry Office, Chirayinkeezh. Petitioner has
also stated in the affidavit accompanying Exhibit
P3 that an authentic copy of the partition deed has
been produced by some others in the tharavad in
O.S.No.1023/04 of the same court.
WPC 35715/08 4
5. In the circumstances, I set aside Exhibit
P4 order passed by the court below on Exhibit P3
and direct the petitioner to re-present the plaint
along with a petition to call for the authentic
copy of the document from O.S.No.1023/04 and to
return the document back to the concerned case
after comparing with the photostat copy that is
produced, causing it to be certified by the
examiner to be true copy, so that in the course of
trial of the suit, petitioner will get an
opportunity to produce, if need be, an authentic
copy of Partition Deed No.48 of 1002 M.E.
This writ petition is disposed of with the
above directions.
3rd December, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv