SREEJITH ALIAS ABHILASH Vs. CHALILPARAMBATH RADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for partition of the year 1988 is the subject matter of these appeals. The suit O.S.No.3/1988 was decreed, but declined share to the 9th defendant, an alleged illegitimate son of late Radhakrishnan. Radhakrishnan's wife Radha is the plaintiff. Late Radhakrishnan's mother and siblings are defendants 1 to 8. Challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.3/1988, two appeals were carried, of which, A.S. No.490/1990 was filed by the 9th defendant; and A.S. No.530/1990, by defendants 1 to 8. The plaintiff is the respondent in both the appeals. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dtd. 22/7/1998, allowed both appeals and set aside the judgment in O.S.No.3/1988, recognising a share to the 9th defendant, the illegitimate son. An appeal preferred before the Division Bench, vide A.F.A No.51/1999, was allowed on a technical ground. The Division Bench found that defendant nos.5 and 7 - one Sathi and Suseela - were no more at the time when the two appeals (A.S.Nos.490/1990 and 530/1990) were decided, and thus, the common judgment was one passed with the dead persons in the party array. On such premise, the judgment was held to be void, since the appeals were ill-constituted. The appeals were accordingly remitted for reconsideration by the Single Bench, after impleading the legal heirs of deceased defendants 5 and 7. It is accordingly that these appeals have now come up for consideration.

(2.) This Court will first deal with the death of the parties and the impleadment of their legal heirs. A.S.No.490/1990 The 1st respondent, Radha passed away pending the appeal and her legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 10 to 12, as per Order in I.A.No.2391/2016 dtd. 3/9/2024. The 2nd respondent, Nani also died and respondents 3 to 9 were impleaded as legal representatives of deceased R2. The 3rd respondent, Soumini also passed away and as per the memo filed, respondents 5, 9 and 17 to 20 were recorded as legal heirs of deceased R3. The 4th respondent, Rugmini also passed away and respondents 5, 9 and 17 to 20 are her legal heirs, recorded as per memo filed. The 6th respondent, Sathi passed away and as per Order in I.A.No.2351/2016, additional respondents 13 and 14 were recorded as the legal heirs of deceased R6. The 7th respondent Raveendran died and as per Order in I.A.No.2403/2016, his legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 17 to 20. Respondent no.8, Suseela died and as per Order in I.A.No.2389/2016, her legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 15 and 16. The 10th respondent, Haridasan passed away and as per Order in I.A.No.2/2024, his legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 21 and 22. The 13th respondent, Bharathan also died and a memo was filed to record the 14th respondent as his legal heir.

(3.) Coming to the respondents in A.S.No.530/2019, there were two respondents originally. Supplemental respondents 3 to 7 were impleaded subsequently. The 1st respondent (plaintiff) passed away and she is survived by supplemental respondents 3 and 4 and one Haridasan. The said Haridasan also passed away, who is survived by supplemental respondents 5 and 6. (see the Orders in I.A.Nos.2392/2016 and 2/2024).