LAWS(KER)-1999-11-77

VASUDEVAN Vs. LAKSHMI

Decided On November 24, 1999
VASUDEVAN Appellant
V/S
LAKSHMI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O. S. 779 of 1992 of the Munsiff's Court, Kannur challenges the orders passed by that Court disposing of I.A. Nos. 2687/95, 2688/95 and 3453/1995.

(2.) The suit was for a declaration that the plaint schedule house is the exclusive property of the plaintiffs, that the ownership and possession of the property rests with the plaintiff and that the defendant has no right or possession over it except as a maid servant and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to leave the house without making any claim over it and also for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensum for use and occupation of the plaint schedule building from the date of plaint till date of vacating the house and for costs of the suit. The defence contentions raised were found to be untenable and ultimately, the Court passed a decree declaring the plaintiffs as the title holders of the plaint schedule property and that the defendant has no substantive right over the plaint schedule property and also granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule building. The plaintiff was also allowed costs of the suit.

(3.) A. S. 34 of 1994 before the District Court, Thalassery, filed by the defendant challenging the decree did not yield any relief and thereupon E. P. 387/1994 was filed by the revision petitioner for execution of the decree. It was at that stage that the plaintiff came to know that by an inadvertent omission, there was actually no schedule incorporated in the plaint. I.A. 2687/1995 was therefore, filed invoking S.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint including the schedule of property. The prayer in I.A. 2688/95 was for amendment of the decree to make it in conformity with the amended plaint. The prayer in I.A. 3453/95 was to call for the records from the execution court. All these petitions were dismissed. It is the legality, regularity and propriety of the aforesaid orders that are impugned herein.