INDIRAMMA @ VALSAMMA Vs. SAVITHIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent expired. It is already ordered that it is not necessary to implead his legal representatives. The learned Senior Advocate C.K. Chandra Pillai appears for the respondents 1 and 4. The other respondents though served, do not appear.

(2.) THE challenge in this original petition is to Ext.P6, order dated 05.10.2010 whereunder a request for amendment of plaint vide I.A. No. 628 of 2010 (in O.S. No. 9 of 2007) was disallowed by the learned Munsiff, Pala with liberty to the plaintiffs/petitioners to bring appropriate fresh application for the purpose.

(3.) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the legal representatives of the 4th plaintiff in O.S. No. 9 of 2007. They claimed that the plaint schedule item Nos. 1 to 5 belonged to the late C.K. Karunakaran who had executed a Will on 11.06.04 bequeathing item Nos. 1 to 5 to the petitioners 1 to 3 and the deceased 4th plaintiff as stated in the said Will. The said Karunakaran died on 30.06.2004. Thereon the petitioners and the deceased 4th plaintiff became absolute owners in possession the plaint schedule item Nos. 1 to 5. They calimed that the first respondent/first defendant, wife of the late Karunakaran was staying in the tarwad house at Chempilavu Kara and that she started residing the building in the plaint schedule item No.4 since 20.12.2006 at the instance of the 3rd respondent and the deceased second respondent. Hence the petitioners and the deceased 4th plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction against the respondents trespassing into plaint schedule items Nos. 1 to 5.