High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 01 KL CK 0147

Maruthukunnel George Cyriac vs Kaviyil Elsamma Cheriyan And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 5 January 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sathish Ninan, J
CASE NUMBER
Original Petition (C) No. 11 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 347 words
1.

Dismissal of an application seeking to set aside the Commissioner's Report and Plan or to remit the same back to the Commissioner, is under challenge by the defendant-petitioner in the application.

2.

The suit is one for partition. The defendant raised a plea of ouster. Additional issue No.6 raised by the court reads thus:-

"Whether the title of any of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties are lost by ouster, adverse possession and limitation ?"

3.

According to the petitioner-defendant, he had submitted a work memo requiring the Commissioner to ascertain the age of the trees in the property, but the same was not reported by the Commissioner. In addition, though the Commissioner was also required to note the various structures/improvements in the property and also its value, the same has also not been reported by the Commissioner, grieves the petitioner.

4.

Sri.Jawahar Jose, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant would submit that though the Commissioner has reported that about 1100 rubber trees are planted in the property along with Teak and Mahagani trees, its age have not been stated. The age of the trees has much relevance with respect to the defendant's plea of ouster, submits the learned counsel. It is to be noticed that even according to the defendant, the rubber trees were re-planted in the year 2004 or 2005 which is within 12 years from the suit. Therefore, the age as such may not be of any significance. It is open for the petitioner-defendant to substantiate his plea of ouster with other materials. The Commissioner's report need not be remitted for the said purpose.

5.

As regards the request for remission of the report to ascertain the value of the improvements, as rightly noticed by the trial court, it is something to be considered in the final decree proceedings. If the plea of ouster is accepted, the said course will not be necessary at all.

The order impugned suffers from no illegality or error of jurisdiction warranting interference in exercise of powers in supervisory jurisdiction. The Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.