Poonjar Koickal Royal Family Trust vs P. Kerala Varma Valiya Raja (Died) and Others

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—P. Kerala Varma Valiya Raja, shown in the cause title as dead, filed a suit before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha which has since been transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010, the ''Act'', for short. Following the demise of the said person, Rama Varma Raja is impleaded as additional plaintiff. That proceeding is against TATA Tea Ltd, Munnar, Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company (P) Ltd. and the State of Kerala. The appellant filed an interlocutory application seeking impleadment. Though the plea was to come on board as an additional defendant, the genesis of the claim is built on a trust stated to be formed by some of the members of the Poonjar Koickal Royal Family. The Tribunal did not permit the impleadment as sought for. Hence this appeal. At the outset, we may note that section 9 of the Act which provides for appeal against the decision of the Tribunal, when examined in the backdrop of the different other provisions, including the definition of ''dispute'' in section 2 (d) and the sweep of the authority under sub-section (9) of section 3 and the relevant provisions in sections 4 and 5, would tend to indicate that an appeal would not lie from any decision or order of the Tribunal. What is provided is an appeal by the Government or any person objecting to "the decision". The use of the term ''the'' prefixed to the word ''decision'' in section 9(1), in our view, would exclude appeals from any or all decisions. A decision that may fall for appeal u/s 9 would be one rendered deciding upon the dispute between the parties as would fall u/s 2(d). In our view, that would only be the final decision or one that may, in exceptional situations, go to the extent of deciding matters which can be treated as disputes u/s 2(d).

The mere refusal of the Tribunal to allow impleadment at the instance of a stranger would not amount to a ''dispute'' which would give the order dismissing the application for impleadment the tenor of a ''decision'' to make it appealable u/s 9(1) of the Act.

Be that as it may, we would view this appeal as an application invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the CPC does not apply in toto and hence, the revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC is not available.

Proceeding to look at the claim of the appellant, we see nothing to hold that the person seeking impleadment had been able to get over the right of the plaintiff who is the dominus litis. We say this because, to our query, learned counsel for the appellant fairly stated that the impleading petitioner''s challenge is not essentially to the plaintiff''s rights but to make the claim on behalf of the members of the joint family and on behalf of the trust constituted by the members. The suit is essentially the choice of the plaintiff. The appellant cannot be foisted by a judicial order on the plaintiff as an additional party to support the plaintiff. If the impleading petitioner is to be arrayed as a defendant, there is nothing on record which will show that the impleading petitioner, in any way, wanted to defeat the suit. The requirement of the appellant is only to enlarge the scope of the suit by not confining it to be merely one for fixation of rent, recovery of rent etc.

We see that the impugned order has been issued also by making some observations regarding the quality of rights that the appellant may have as a trust. We think that such observations should not stand in the way of the appellant when it has any independent right to sue or participate in any proceedings before the Tribunal, if it is already a party. In the aforesaid circumstances, while we see that the appellant does not have any case warranting interference with the impugned order, even under Article 227 of the Constitution, it has to be clarified that no observations in the impugned order will stand in the way of the appellant pursuing any remedy on the basis of any right it professes to hold as the Poonjar Koickal Royal Family Trust.

In the result, subject to what is stated herein above, this matter is dismissed in limine.