IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 735 of 2005()
1. ANILKUMAR.P., S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MR.BABY JOSEPH, KUTTIKATTU HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. MR.RADHAKRISHNAN, KURUPPUMPARAMBIL
3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JANARDHANAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.JAYASANKAR
The Hon'ble SHRI K. Justice J.THOMAS STANLEY(RETD.ADDL.DIST.JUDGE)
Dated :26/02/2009
O R D E R
SMT.SUMATHI DANDAPANI
(SENIOR ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
AND
SRI.K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
(RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
==================================
M.A.C.A.No.735 of 2005
=================================
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009
AWARD
Counsel for the appellant is present. Officials of the
Insurance Company and counsel for the Insurance Company are
also present. Parties agreed that the appeal can be settled at an
enhancement of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only). So, the
Insurance Company is directed to pay enhanced compensation of
Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the appellant within a
period of 60 days from the date of the Award, failing which the
said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
M.A.C.A is settled as above.
SUMATHI DANDAPANI
(SENIOR ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
(RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
dvs
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C).No. 35008 of 2008(P)
#1. JOSE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.VAREED,
... Petitioner
2. KOCHUTHRESSIA, W/O.JOSE, MECHERY
Vs
$1. REETHA ANTHONY, W/O.ANTHONY,
... Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN
^ For Respondent :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
% Dated :26/02/2009
: O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
——————————————
W.P(C).NO.35008 OF 2008
——————————————
Dated 26th February 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.1752/2005
on the file of Munsiff court, Thrissur. This petition
is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India
challenging Ext.P2 order passed by Additional Munsiff
in I.A.8008/2007, an application filed to set aside
the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner.
Ext.P1 is the report and plan submitted by the
Commissioner. Case of the petitioners is that the
total extent of the property belonging to him under
sale deed 3164/92 and 2828/93 is 8< cents in
survey No.731/2 and 732/1 of Chembukkavu village and
as per Ext.P1 report and plan the extent shown by the
Commissioner is only 7.910 cents and learned Munsiff
should have set aside the report.
2. Ext.P1 report shows that the
Commissioner found that though in sale deed obtained
by the petitioners and in the anterior document of
title viz. partition deed No.323/87 the property is
WPC 35008/08
2
shown as in survey No.731/2 and 732/1, there is no
such property and property is actually in survey
No.731/1. Commissioner also reported that there is no
physical boundary to enable the Commissioner to locate
the said property and the properties were fixed in
agreement with petitioners and respondent as that
there shortage of extent. It is based on the extent
fixed by the Commissioner which is less than the extent
available in the documents of title of the the
petitioners, the objection is raised. But the extent
fixed by the Commissioner in respect of the property
of respondent is also than the one shown in the
partition deed. In such circumstances, it is a matter
for the court to decide in the suit whether the
identification and demarcation in the plan and report
submitted by the Commissioner is to be accepted or not.
I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P2 order.
Writ petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.