P.A. TO JUDGE v. CHITAMBARESH, J

OP(C) NO. 1354/2011APPENDIXPETITIONER(S) EXHIBITSEXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 417/2010 ON THE FILE OF IIADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.EXHIBIT P2SERIES:TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OFTHE DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT P3SERIES:TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 2283/11 AND IA NO. 2284/11 IN OS 417/10 ONTHE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.EXHIBIT P4:TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 2210/2011 IN OS 417/2010 ON THE FILE OF IIADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.EXHIBIT P5:TRUE COPY OF IA 2211/11 IN OS 417/10 ON THE FILE OF IIADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.EXHIBIT P6:TRUE COPY OF IA 2306/11IN OS 417/10 ON THE FILE OF IIADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.EXHIBIT P7:TRUE COPY OF IA 2307/11 IN OS 417/10 ON THE FILE OF IIADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.EXHIBIT P8:TRUE COPY OF RELINQUISHMENT LETTER EXECUTED BY THEPETITIONER.EXHIBIT P9:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.01.2010 ISSUED BY THEPLAINTIFF TO DEVASWOM BOARD.EXHIBIT P10:TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM DEVASWOM BOARD ISSUED TOTHE PLAINTIFF.RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL/TRUE COPY/P.A. TO JUDGE. V. CHITAMBARESH, J--------------------------------OP(C) NO. 1354 OF 2011------------------------------------Dated this the 12th day of June, 2012JUDGMENTThe suit is one for partition of the property left behind byone Chandrasekharan who was an employee of the TravancoreDevaswom Board. The plaintiff is the mother of the saidChandrasekharan and the defendants are his widow and threechildren. The plaint A schedule property is 2 cents of landstanding in the name of the said Chandrasekharan. The plaintB schedule property are the retiral benefits ofChandrasekharan from the Travancore Devaswom Board andalso the benefits accrued from Life Insurance Corporation.2.The defendants had originally averred in the twowritten statements separately filed that they are not in receiptof any benefits either from the Travancore Devaswom Boardor the Life Insurance Corporation. The plaintiff in the courseof evidence summoned documents from the TravancoreDevaswom Board and the Life Insurance Corporation. Thesame revealed that a sum of ` 2,02,000/- (Rupees Two lakhsand two thousand only) was received by the defendants from 2OP(C) No. 1354/2011the Travancore Devaswom Board and Life InsuranceCorporation.3.The defendants thereafter filed an application toamend the written statements for the purpose of clarification. They admitted that a sum of ` 2,02,000/- was received from theTravancore Devaswom Board and the Life InsuranceCorporation. But they wanted to aver that the same was appliedto discharge the loan of several other creditors. They pointedout that the said Chandrasekharan was indebted to many to thetune of ` 5,93,000/-.4.The sum of ` 2,02,000/- was paid to the creditors anda further sum of ` 3,91,000/- is due towards the loan. Thecreditors included the Corporation Bank, Poothotta and otherprivate financiers. The details of those creditors had been givenin the application for amendment of the written statements. These were the particulars that were incorporated by way ofamendment to the two written statements separately filed.5.What is the partible asset especially the plaint Bschedule property is one of the cardinal issues. The extent of 3OP(C) No. 1354/2011money received by the widow and children of Chandrasekharanhas to be ascertained. The question whether the said amountwas applied allegedly to discharge other loans outstanding hasalso to be considered. There is no change to the character of thesuit which remains to be one for partition. The entire fabric ofthe defence is also not sought to be altered and no admission istaken away.6.The defendants also want to point out that the plaintiffhad issued a consent letter to the Tranvancore Devaswom Board. The question whether the consent letter is a nomination or arelinquishment by the plaintiff also arises for consideration. Theconsent letter (Ext.P8) and also the letter issued by theTravancore Devaswom Board (Ext.P10) in response to the letterby the plaintiff are relevant.7.There is of course some delay in seeking to apply foramendment of the written statements. The first defendant is arustic widow with three children. She has averred in theapplication for amendment of the written statement that shecould not point out the details of creditors notwithstanding the 4OP(C) No. 1354/2011exercise of due diligence. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of thethe Code of Civil Procedure is not an absolute embargo to allowamendment of pleadings at all times. 8.I.A. Nos. 2283/2011 and 2284/2011 in O.S. No.417/2010 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge ofErnakulam for amendment are allowed. This is subject to thecondition that the petitioners (defendants) pay a sum of `10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as costs to the counsel for theplaintiff in this Original Petition within a period of one monthfrom today. I.A. Nos. 2306/2011 and 2307/2011 to call for thedocuments from the Travancore Devaswom Board are alsoallowed. The orders impugned will remain intact if thepetitioners omit to pay the costs as directed above. The Original Petition is allowed as above.V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGEncd