Interrogatories must be relevant to the matters in question and can be allowed even after a previous application is dismissed if based on changed circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Defendant No.1, in a suit, challenges the order of the Trial Court granting leave to the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories, in this Original Petition. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the members of the Kuttipurath Chelath Tharawad. Defendant No.2 is the mother of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 is the uncle of the plaintiff.

2. The Plaint Schedule Properties, along with some other properties, originally belonged to the tharawad. Some of the members of the tharawad filed O.S No.76/1960 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode seeking partition of the tharawad properties. The Court decreed the suit. A preliminary decree was passed on 03.01.1970. In the final decree proceedings, the properties were partitioned. The plaintiff was a minor at the time of passing the final decree. Her mother (defendant No.2) had acted as her guardian. Later, defendant No.2 remarried. The plaintiff attained majority on 09.07.1972. She was married off. After the marriage, the plaintiff shifted her residence to Goa. Item numbers 32, 36 and 81 properties in the final decree were set apart to the share of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. Item numbers 256(B), 47(9), 49(3), 66(A), 419 and 349 to 382 properties were set apart to the share of defendant No.1, who was defendant No.4 in the suit.

3. In the suit, the plaintiff pleaded the following:

The plaintiff's share in the plaint schedule properties is managed by defendant No.2 on her behalf. The properties are in the joint ownership of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 is living with her children in the second wedlock. On 01.10.2014, the plaintiff approached defendant No.2 and requested for partition and separate possession of her share in the plaint schedule properties. She was not willing to partition. Defendant No.2 instructed the plaintiff to approach her brother, who is now managing the properties. So, the plaintiff approached defendant No.1. He claimed that the property belonged to him and the plaintiff had no share in it. On enquiry, the plaintiff realised that defendant No.1 had fraudulently created document No.4283/2012, styled as a gift deed in favour of defendant No.3, his grandson. Defendant No.1 has no right or authority to register document No.4283/2012. It is a sham document created to defraud the plaintiff with the connivance of defendant No.2. The plaintiff is entitled to one-half share in the properties.

4. The defendants resisted the suit, raising the following contentions:

Neither the plaintiff nor any members of the family, who were parties to O.S No.76/1960 or in the final decree proceedings, filed any execution application to execute the decree. The final decree passed on 30.08.1971 stands unexecuted. The entire properties involved in O.S No.76/1960 have become co-shareship properties. The plaintiff should have filed an application to execute the final decree on or before 09.07.1974. The statement that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 are in joint possession of the property is not correct. Defendant No.1 was also a party to the proceedings in the suit and in the final decree. He is supposed to be a co-sharer with respect to the plaint schedule items 1 to 3, just like the plaintiff and defendant No.2.

5. Defendant No.1 incorporated amendments in the written statement contending that neither the plaintiff nor defendant No.2 has any title or interest in the properties. Defendant No.3 is in possession of the property as per settlement deed No.4283/2012.

6. The plaintiff filed I.A No.255/2017 seeking leave to deliver interrogatories as per Order XI Rule 1 of CPC. On 28.07.2017, that application was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A No.843/2019 seeking leave to deliver interrogatories to defendant No.1. That application was allowed on 15.10.2019. The Court directed defendant No.1 to file an answer-affidavit on or before 26.10.2019. This order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

7. I have heard the learned counsel ap