GOPINATHAN Vs. K N RAVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this Original Petition is whether a defendant could be allowed to amend the name of his father in the vakalath filed on his behalf in the suit.

(2.) The petitioner filed O.S.No.165 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottappalam. In the plaint, the first respondent herein, who is the fourth defendant in the suit was shown as K.N.Ravichandran, son of Narayana Gupthan. The fourth defendant engaged a counsel who filed vakalath in which the fourth defendant was shown as the son of Narayana Gupthan, on the basis of what was stated in the cause title in the plaint. In the written statement filed by the fourth defendant, he stated that his biological father is Narayana Gupthan, but he is the adopted son of C.S.Gupthan. The suit is for partition of the property which belonged to C.S.Gupthan who died issuless. The fourth defendant claims to be a legatee under the Will allegedly executed by C.S.Gupthan.

(3.) There is no dispute for the fourth defendant that he is the son of Narayana Gupthan. His case is that he is the adopted son of C.S.Gupthan. That is a matter to be decided in the suit. However, coming to know that a mistake crept in the vakalath and other papers, the fourth defendant filed I.A.No.26 of 2011 to amend the vakalath and other papers to delete his father's name shown as Narayana Gupthan and to substitute it as C.S.Gupthan. The application was very seriously opposed by the plaintiff. He filed a counter contending that the application is not maintainable. The plaintiff contended that C.S.Gupthan @ Sankara Gupthan never adopted the fourth defendant. He also raised a contention that the fourth defendant is the son of Narayana Gupthan. It was pointed out by the plaintiff that the vakalath and affidavits submitted by the fourth defendant would show that he is the son of Narayana Gupthan. The change of name of the father was sought to be made only to get the property. The plaintiff contended that the fourth defendant is a teacher and therefore, it cannot be said that he was unaware of the real facts.