ABDUL LATHEEF VAIDYAN Vs. M SHAHUL HAMEED ASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O.S.No.295 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Karunagappally are the petitioners challenging Ext.P5, order refusing to implead 3rd parties as additional defendants in the suit. Petitioners sued for a declaration that family name 'Anakkarantayyathu' exclusively belong to them and for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents/defendants from using the said family name. Respondents filed Ext.P2, written statement contending that even as per records kept with the Mahal Jama-ath of the locality, family name of respondents is shown as 'Anakkarantayyathu'. In view of that contention, petitioners filed Ext.P3, application to implead office bearers of Mahal Jama-ath as additional defendants as per Rule 10(2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") alleging that Mahal Jama-ath has fabricated documents to help the respondents. Ext.P3, application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff by Ext.P5, order which is under challenge. It is contended that officials of the Mahal Jama-ath are necessary or atleast proper parties to the suit to get effective decree as prayed for by petitioners. Otherwise, even if a decree is obtained by petitioners Mahal Jama-ath may not be bound by the said decree and decree become effectless. It is contended by learned counsel that learned Munsiff has dismissed the application by a non speaking order.

(2.) LEARNED Munsiff has stated in Ext.P5, that the parties sought to be impleaded are neither necessary nor proper parties to decide the dispute and hence the application is dismissed. True, learned Munsiff has not explained how the parties sought to be impleaded are either not necessary or proper parties but learned Munsiff has found that they are neither necessary nor proper parties and dismissed the application. I shall advert to the arguments advanced by learned counsel. It is true that in Ext.P2, written statement respondents stated that in the records maintained by the Mahal Jama-ath their family name is stated as 'Anakkarantayyathu'. It is also true that Ext.P3, application alleges that the said documents were fabricated by the officials of Mahal Jama-ath to help the respondents. But, I am unable to accept the contention that officials of the Mahal Jama-ath are necessary or proper parties to this litigation. The controversy involved in the suit is something between petitioners and respondents/defendants as to whether family name, 'Anakkarantayyathu' exclusively belongs to the petitioners or, respondents are also entitled to use it. The mere fact that family name of respondents is entered as 'Anakkarantayyathu' in the records of Mahal Jama-ath is not by itself reason to think that they are necessary or proper parties to the litigation. In Skaria Joseph Vs. Eliyamma Joseph (1996(2) KLT 295) this court stated who are necessary or proper parties to the litigation. It is stated that,