BINU MATHAI Vs. C.N. LEELAMANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for injunction in which he claimed right over the plaint scheduled property on the strength of his right under section 106 of the KLR Act. According to the plaintiff, property was given on lease by the Malankara Syrian Catholic Arch Diocese, which was the owner of the property to his father and pursuant to the permission granted, they made certain constructions. The defendants in the written statement, contended that the Malankara Syrian Catholic Arch Diocese, Thiruvananthapuram by an exchange deed dated 18.05.2001 had exchanged the disputed land to the deceased-husband of the first defendant. It was claimed that the husband of the first defendant, became the absolute owner in possession of the plaint scheduled property and the structures situated therein. Hence, rival contentions were set up by the plaintiff under section 106 of the KLR Act and the defendants on the strength of the exchange deed executed by the previous owner.

(2.) When the matter was listed for trial, the petitioner herein filed IA.No.1107/2019, to implead the Arch Bishop of Malankara Syrian Catholic Arch Diocese, Thiruvananthapuram as the additional fifth defendant. Accepting the objections raised by the defendants 1 to 4, the court below dismissed the application on the premise that the Malankara Syrian Catholic Arch Diocese, Thiruvananthapuram, did not have right over the plaint scheduled property. Hence, to adjudicate the matter of controversy, the presence of the Malankara Syrian Catholic Arch Diocese, Thiruvananthapuram was not necessary. The court below also held that the application was filed, after the case was listed for trial and hence it can only be treated as an attempt to delay the trial.

(3.) According to the petitioner, his predecessor and himself are entitled to protection under section 106 of the KLR Act. This is the crux of the dispute involved in the suit. It is defended by the defendants, claiming right having derived on the basis of the exchange deed. Essentially, the right claimed by the defendants, on the strength of the settlement deed is a matter to be established by them. The reason stated for impleading the Arch Bishop is that the petitioner/plaintiff had initiated OS.No.248/1996 against the church and church had initiated OS.No.234/1997 against the petitioner herein. Both these suits were not pursued thereafter. I am satisfied that, that cannot be a reason for impleading the church in the present suit. The Original Suit was not filed against the church and no relief was also sought against them. Even at the time of instituting the suit, the plaintiff did not feel that the church should be arrayed even as a proper party to make the decree, if any obtained, as against the defendants binding. Hence, the reason now projected cannot be accepted as a valid reason for impleadment.