A counter claim need not be restricted to the cause of action on the basis of which the plaintiffs had raised the claim. It can be a different cause of action and need not necessarily be in respect of the same subject matter. Impleading of additional defendants in the counter claim is allowed, and consideration of the contention under Order 8, Rule 6 (c) of the Code by the counter claim defendants is also permitted.

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

The defendant and her minor daughter in O.S.475/2011 on the file of the 3rd Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode have filed this petition challenging Ext.P7 and P8 orders passed by the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed Ext.P1 suit as O.S.475/2011 on the file of the 3rd Additional Sub Court for recovery of an amount of 12,28,099/- from the defendant, who is ` the first petitioner here. It is alleged in the petition that the first petitioner herein is the widow of their deceased son Usman @ Mujeeb. Apart from the plaintiffs and the defendant in the suit, as per muslim law his children Shana Sherin and Shamna Thasnim are the legal heirs of the deceased Usman. Out of the female children of Usman, Shana Sherim died on 13.10.2008 and as per muslim law, her estate will devolve on the first plaintiff and the defendant and her sister Shamna Thasnim as her legal heirs. The first plaintiff is entitled to get 68/243 share, 2nd plaintiff is entitled to get 36/243 share and the remaining shares will devolve on the defendant and her daughter Shamna Thasnim. The plaintiffs have released their right in the immovable properties which they inherited on the death of Usman in favour of their son Basheer. The defendant and her daughter are the co-owners of that property. Usman had taken a policy with life insurance corporation and bajaj alliance and he had shown his wife namely the defendant as his nominee. On the death of Usman, the defendant had collected the amounts with the consent of the plaintiffs and she had collected Rs. 21,20,808/- from life insurance corporation and Rs.8,16,000/- from Bajaj Alliance insurance. But she had not paid the share due to the plaintiffs. Though they have sent a notice demanding the amount, she had sent a reply with false allegations. The plaintiffs are jointly entitled to get 12,56,905/- being their share of 104/243 in the amount, `which the defendant is liable to pay. Since she did not pay the amount, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for realisation of the amount.

3. The defendant who is the first petitioner herein filed Ext.P2 written statement admitting the relationship and also devolution of right on the death of her husband Usman @ Mujeeb and also receipt of the amount due under the policies in the name of Usman from life insurance corporation as well as Bajaj Alliance insurance, but submitted that the amount claimed is not correct. Certain amounts have been spent for the purpose of discharging the liability of deceased Usman @ Mujeeb. She had also raised a counter claim for partition of counter claim A schedule properties, which belonged to her late husband Usman @ Mujeeb and also claimed set off in respect of the amount used by her from the amount due to Usman @ Mujeeb for discharge of his liabilities. The respondents filed Ext.P9 replication to the counter claim which was produced along with I.A.1132/16 by the petitioners wherein they have stated that the immovable property need not be included in the suit and they have released their undivided share in the counter claim A schedule property in favour of their son Basheer, who is a necessary party to the proceedings. They have also denied that deceased had any liabilities which the counter claim plaintiff had discharged and they have no liability to contribute anything to the same. Further the valuation shown is not proper and the court fee paid is also not correct. On the basis of the replications, plaintiff filed I.A.937/13 to implead her daughter Shamna Nasnim, minor represented by the first petitioner and Pulickapoyil Basheer as additional defendants 2 and 3 in the suit and also filed I.A.938/2013 to appoint the defendant who is the first petitioner herein as the guardian of the proposed 2nd defendant, who is a minor. The respondent filed counter to the same stating that in their suit 3rd parties cannot be impleaded and they prayed for dismissal of the ap