IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 15 of 2007()
1. MAINA, W/O. LATE VELU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AVADI AMMAL, W/O. LATE M.A.VELU,
... Respondent
2. MUNISWAMY, S/O.LATE VELU,
3. GANAPATHY, S/O.LATE VELU,
4. RAMAKRISHNAN & 3 OTHERS D.NO.28,
5. ALLY, W/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,
6. MAHESWARY, D/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,
7. ANITHA, D/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :04/01/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
C.R.P No.15 OF 2007
............................................
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2007
ORDER
E.P.507 of 2005 on the file of Munsiff Court,
Ernakulam was filed by respondents 1 to 3 being the
legal heirs of deceased Velu, the decree holder in
O.S.1899 of 1997 for delivery of the property as
provided under the decree. Petitioner filed E.A.268 of
2006 contending that she is the widow of deceased Velu
and first respondent is not his wife and respondents 2
and 3 are not the children of Velu and therefore
respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to take delivery of
the property and petitioner is to be impleaded.
Respondents 1 to 3 opposed the application. The learned
Munsiff under order dated 23.11.2006 dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner which is challenged
in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of
Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
vehemently argued that respondents 1 to 3 are total
strangers and they have nothing to do with deceased
Velu and petitioner is the widow of Velu and she has
CRP 15/2007 2
produced Ext.A1 marriage certificate obtained from the
temple to establish their marriage and in such
circumstances, the learned Munsiff should have allowed
petitioner to get herself impleaded in the execution
petition.
3. The impugned order passed by the learned
Munsiff shows that the respondents 1 to 3 produced
Ext.P2 legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar
to prove that first respondent is the widow and
respondents 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Velu.
So also Ext.P1 identity card and Ext.B3 certificate
issued by the Village Officer and Ext.B4 order from the
local administration department and Exts.B5 and B8
orders were produced. In the light of Exts.B1 to B6 the
learned Munsiff found that respondents 1 to 3 are the
legal heirs of the deceased Velu and petitioner is not
entitled to get herself impleaded. I do not find any
illegality or irregularity in that order in the light
of the docments produced by respondents 1 to 3.
Petitioner is at liberty to file a separate suit
establishing her right as the widow and if petitioner
could establish that right, the delivery in E.P.507 of
CRP 15/2007 3
2005 made by the court in favour of respondents 1 to 3
shall enure to the benefit of the real legal heir of
the deceased Velu.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-