PARUKUTTY Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING execution of the decree in O. S. No. 78 of 1990 of the Additional Sub Court, North Parur through E. P. No. 184 of 1992, the petitioner put in an application seeking her impleadment as additional petitioner in the claim petition filed ase. A. 605 of 1984 by her mother. It was contended that the petitioner is also a legal heir of the deceased mother along with respondents 2,4 and 5 and that her presence was hence necessary to continue the claim petition.

(2.) THE decree was obtained against the 2nd respondent based on a loan obtained from the decree holder. In the property that was mortgaged by the 2nd respondent, his mother Lakshmi also had a life estate and that was why the claim was filed. THE request for impleadment was resisted on the ground that the life interest for which alone Lakshmi was entitled to, has ceased to be in existence with her death and that no right over the property has survived in favour of the present petitioner and as such she is an un-necessary party. THE court below accepted the respondent's version and dismissed the petition.

(3.) IT is clear from a plain reading of the Section itself that S. 14 (2) is actually a proviso or exception to sub. s. (1) of S. 14 of the Act with its operation confined to cases where property is acquired for the first time as a grant without any pre. existing right. If the female had an existing interest in the property, the interposition of any instrument will not affect the operation of sub. s. (1) of S. 14 of the Act and the property will still be held by the female as her absolute property.