MARY EASOW v. C.N.MATHEW

BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: -------------

C.N.MATHEW, KALKUZHIYILAYACHARAVALIL VEETTIL, PERUMPETTY MURI, PERUMPETTY VILLAGE.

JACOB NINAN OF DO, DO.

PHILIP NINAN, ANU COTTAGE, CHERAVALIL.207, DARSAN NAGAR, 2ND LANE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON 24/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT NO REPRESENTATION FOR PETITIONER. CALLED. ABSENT. WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED.

24.7.2008 SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4712 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and may quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii) May allow Exts.P1 and P1(a). iii) Such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit for the ends of justice.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.19 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. Suit is one for fixation of boundary and the respondents are the defendants. That suit, it is submitted, is tried along with four other suits in which declaration for setting aside documents is also sought for among other reliefs. W.P.(C).No.4712 OF 2008 Page numbers In the course of evidence, one of the witnesses examined (DW2) has given evidence that his father passed away in 1953 and ten days later his grand father also passed away. To impeach the correctness of that statement, plaintiff filed an application to summon two witnesses, both priests of churches, with documents showing the details of burials that had taken place in the cemetery of the churches under their control. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed that application vide Ext.P2 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in the present suit the relief is sought for fixation of boundaries, in the connected suits, questions involving substantive rights of the parties over immovable properties are involved W.P.(C).No.4712 OF 2008 Page numbers and a cardinal question to be resolved in the suit rest over a dispute as to the date of death of the father of the petitioner / plaintiff. According to the petitioner / plaintiff her father Easow died in 1926 when the Travancore Christian Succession Act was in force, but, according to the contesting defendants, his death was in 1953. The third respondent in the present writ petition, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has filed a separate suit to set aside a document executed by the petitioner and that suit is also one among the suits jointly tried with the present suit. Petitioner, it is submitted, supports the case of the third respondent in that suit. To resolve the disputes involved in the suits, which are jointly tried, it is submitted by the counsel, summoning of the witnesses sought for directing them to produce the documents is essential. The question as to when the father of the petitioner, namely, Easow passed away is relevant and material for a proper and fair adjudication and disposal of the suits. On the other hand, the learned counsel W.P.(C).No.4712 OF 2008 Page numbers for the first respondent submitted, there is no merit in the writ petition and to contradict a statement given by one of the witnesses (DW2), petitioner has sought for summoning additional witnesses and through them production of additional documents. That application, according to the counsel, was rightly and correctly dismissed by the learned Sub Judge.

Having regard to the submissions made and perusing Ext.P2 order, I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Sub Judge declining the request of the petitioner to summon additional witnesses to contradict the statement made by a witness examined in the case. It is open to the petitioner to produce relevant documents to substantiate her case in case recording of evidence in the case has not been closed. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE P.A TO JUDGE