An interesting question of locus standi comes up for resolution in these Second Appeals.

2. The common appellant in these Second Appeals is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 81 of 1985 on the file of the I Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said suit was one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs half share over the plaint schedule property admeasuring 30 acres of land and also for a temporary injunction restraining the 8th defendant State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary from issuing pattayams in respect of the plaint schedule property to any of the other defendants in the suit. THE PLAINTIFFS CASE

3. Theplaint schedule property admeasuring 30 acres comprised in re-survey No. 6 of Vithura Village (formerly Arianad Village) of Nedumangad Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District belonged to the plaintiffs deceased mother Kunjikamakshi as per Ext.A1 settlement deed dated 1-7-1118 M.E. corresponding to the year 1943. Subsequently Kunjikamakshi died on 4-12-1120 M.E.. On her death the plaint schedule property devolved on the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters who are defendants 1 to 6. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 have thus become co-owners of the property. Even though the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are having equal rights over the property, as per an oral agreement between them the plaintiff is entitled to get half of the plaint schedule property. The 7th defendant Lakshmanan Vaidhyan Krishnan is a person who has planted medicinal plants in the plaint schedule property with the permission of the parents of the plaintiff. Hence he is also made a formal party to the suit. In case defendants 1 to 7 succeed in getting some favourable orders from the Government it may not be possible for the plaintiff to get effective relief in the suit. As the plaintiff is not seeking any permanent relief against the 8th defendant State of Kerala and since time was not sufficient for issuing notice to the Government the plaintiff has not sent a notice under Sec. 80 C.P.C. and as filed a petition seeking exemption from notice. The other legal heirs are attempting to get assignment of the property from the Government. It has, therefore, become necessary for the plaintiff to seek partition and separate possession of his = share over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also seeks a temporary injunction against the 8th defendant State of Kerala restraining the State from taking steps for assignment of the plaint schedule property to the other legal heirs.

Hence the suit. POST INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

4. Defendants 3, 5 and 6 remained ex-parte and did not enter appearance through counsel. The 7th defendant died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional defendants 9 to 11. Eventhough defendants 1, 2 and 4 entered appearance through Adv. Sri. A. Mahalchandra Babu, the 7th defendant through Advocate Sri. S.V. Premakumaran Nair, 8th defendant State of Kerala through the Government Pleader Adv. Sri. K.R. Nandakumar, Addl. defendants 9 to 11 through Advocate Smt. S. Indira Bai and Additional 12th and 13th defendants through Adv. Sri. S. V. Premakumaran Nair, all of them subsequently remained ex parte without filing a written statement.

THE EX PARTE DECREES

5. On14-12-1988 the learned Sub Judge after marking Ext.A1 settlement deed dated 1-7-1118 M.E. through the plaintiff who filed an affidavit, passed a preliminary as prayed for on the view that the plaint averments stood proved by affidavit and Ext.A1.

6. I.A. 790 of 1989 was an application filed by the plaintiff for the passing of a final decree. Eight years thereafter, the trial court passed a final decree also on 28-10-1997.

THE CHALLENGE AGAINST THE EX PARTE DECREES

7. The State, represented by the Chief Secretary, filed I.A. No. 3783/1994 under Order IX R. 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte preliminary decree. The said application filed through the Addl. Government Pleader Sri. M.M. Hussain was dismissed on 25-3-1996. Nearly thr