Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GOPI, S/O.CHUNDAYIL LATE NARAYANAN NAIR versus GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHUNDAYIL LATE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


GOPI, S/O.CHUNDAYIL LATE NARAYANAN NAIR v. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHUNDAYIL LATE - WP(C) No. 24232 of 2007(I) [2007] RD-KL 15285 (9 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24232 of 2007(I)

1. GOPI, S/O.CHUNDAYIL LATE NARAYANAN NAIR,
... Petitioner

2. RAMANI, D/O. DO, DO, DO.

3. PARVATHI, D/O. DO, DO.

Vs

1. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHUNDAYIL LATE
... Respondent

2. KARTHYAYANI AMMA, W/O.CHUNDAYIL LATE

3. LAKSHMIKUTTY, D/O. -DO--DO-.

4. SAROJINI, D/O. -DO-, AND

For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :09/08/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No.24232 OF 2007 I

Dated this the 9th August, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by defendants 3 to 6 in O.S.120/05 of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad. It was an application filed by them for amendment of the written statement. They want to incorporate the plea that by virtue of a gift deed registered on 1.2.2005 three items of the property scheduled therein has been gifted in their favour and therefore the said items are not available for division. It is true that in the original written statement it has not been stated. The question whether the alleged gift deed is valid or whether it will deprive the plaintiffs of their right in the property are all matters that has to be considered in the trial. I am informed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that in an interim application the court has taken note of this gift deed and negatived the relief to the plaintiffs. It appears that it is a very crucial document so far as these defendants are concerned and suppose the lawyer or the advocate clerk had committed mistake, an illiterate party who is not well conversant with the litigation should not be deprived of the legal right. By allowing this amendment application I do not feel that it will change the character WPC 24232/07 2 of the suit or change the status of the parties. Therefore the order suffers from infirmity and it is liable to be set aside. Therefore I set aside the order and remit it back to the court below to consider this application afresh in the light of the observations mentioned above and after hearing the other party and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.