KRISHNAN NAMBUDIRI Vs. THANKAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRS! defendant in O. S. 246 of 1984 of the Sub Court, thrissur, a suit for partition, filed I. A. 2143 of 1993 for transferring the suit to the Family Court, Ernakulam. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. The revision petitioner challenges the said order in this revision.

(2.) PLAINTIFF/ respondent is the wife of the first defendant-revision petitioner. She instituted the suit for partition and allotment of her 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. Second defendant is the daughter of plaintiff and first defendant. The respondent alleged that herself, the revision petitioner and the second defendant are entitled to 1/3rd each in the plaint schedule property. But the first defendant maintained that his sisters are also entitled to share and that, the tenants of the rooms and his sisters arc also necessary parties. Accordingly they were also impleaded, the sisters of the revision petitioner are defendants 3 to 5, and defendants 6 and 7 are the tenants. In the counter affidavit to C. M. P. 3657 of 1993 filed by the revision petitioner for interim stay, the respondent mentions the circumstance which necessitated the impleadment of defendants 3 to 7. In that counter affidavit, the respondent would maintain that after the institution of the suit defendants 3 to 5, the sisters of the first defendant instituted o. S. 165 of 1985 for partition without impleading the respondent and obtained a decree. Therefore, the respondent instituted O. S. 246 of 1986 for declaration that preliminary decree in O. S. 165 of 1985 is invalid and not binding on her. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that O. S. 246 of 1984 from the order in which the revision arises, and O. S. 246 of 1986 were allowed to be jointly tried and that after recording the evidence in the case, the said petition for transfer of the case to the Family Court was filed.