High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 09 KL CK 0384

T.P. Rajan Nair and K.M. Thankamma vs Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayath, Saji Souparnika and Santha Sukumaran

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 15 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 31013 of 2009 (O)

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

5 paragraphs · 400 words

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.—The Writ petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S No. 122 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff''s Court, Muvattupuzha. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. This suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside Ext.P6 order of the Munsiff''s Court.

2.

I.A No. 2431/2009 is a petition filed by the defendants in the suit for issuance of a commission for measuring the plaint schedule property and the property adjacent to the plaint schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. No. 2431/2009, it is stated that there is very old thodu is on the eastern, southern and northern side of the plaint schedule property and there is thodu puramboke on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. It is also stated that the suit was filed by wrongly including a portion of the puramboke on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The grievance of the petitioners in the I.A is that for a proper determination of the dispute between the parties, the plaint schedule property and the adjoining property are to be measured as per survey records and on the basis of the documents relied on by the plaintiffs.

3.

The prayer in the I.A was opposed by the plaintiffs. They contended that the suit is for injunction simplicitor, the question is as to whether the plaintiffs'' possession over the plaint schedule property is proved. The measurement of the plaint schedule property and the adjoining property on the basis of the survey records is quite unnecessary and therefore, the prayer in the I.A is not allowable.

4.

After considering the contentions of both sides, the court allowed the petition and the court found that defendants have a case that plaintiffs included the puramboke land within the plaint schedule property. In such circumstance, the puramboke land lying adjacent to the property can be ascertained only by a survey measurement. The court found that for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the prayer for issuance of a commission for measurement of the property and the adjoining puramboke land is necessary. I do not find any valid ground to interfere with Ext.P6 order passed by the Munsiff''s Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India.

The Writ Petition stands dismissed.