Varghese vs Thankachan on 16 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1997 of 2008(K)


1. VARGHESE, AGED 79 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THANKACHAN, S/O POULOSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. AMMINI, W/O POULOSE,

3. ALICE, D/O POULOSE,

4. MARY, D/O POULOSE,

5. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :16/01/2008

 O R D E R
                              M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

                            -------------------------

                          WP(C) No. 1997 of 2008

                       ---------------------------------

              Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2008


                                 J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed against the order of the Munsiff,

Perumbavoor in I.A.462/2006 in O.S.355/03, which is an

application filed by the 1st defendant for remitting the

Commissioner’s plan and report. A perusal of the sketch submitted

by the Commissioner would show that though the parties are

entitled to equal extent of 42 cents under the document, the land

available for each of them is less than 42 cents. The plaint A

schedule is having only an actual extent of 39.980 cents now.

According to the Commissioner, the property obtained by the

defendant as per document No.80/74 is only having a total extent

of 39.495 cents now. The contention of the 1st defendant in the

case is that the plan and report submitted by the Commissioner is

incorrect and it requires remission. If there are mistakes

committed, it has to be proved by evidence. Therefore, at this

stage, I do not want to interfere with the decision rendered by the

learned Munsiff but make it very clear that the disposal of the

application will not prevent the 1st defendant from adducing

evidence in support of the contention that the Commissioner’s plan

WP(C) No. 1997/2008

-2-

and report is incorrect and if the court is convinced, at the stage of

evidence or after, that the Commissioner’s plan and report requires

either remittance or clarification, the court is at liberty to do the

same or to resolve the real controversy between the parties. With

these observations, the writ petition is disposed of as above.

(M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE)

jg