IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30686 of 2008(C)
1. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KESAVA PANICKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KESAVA PANICKER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :23/10/2008
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.30686 OF 2008(C)
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
2. Petitioner instituted O.S.No.789/2006 for fixation of
boundary of the schedule property. He wanted the boundary of
the property with the property of the respondent to be fixed as
per his title deed. Respondent/defendant contested the suit.
Court below appointed Advocate Commissioner and Taluk
Surveyor to measure the property. Exhibit C2 is the commission
report. Exhibit C1 is the plan based on the re-survey plan. Exhibit
C1(a) is the plan based on the title deed of the petitioner. Both
sides filed objections to the report and plans. The Commissioner
and Taluk Surveyor were examined. Court below found that
Exhibit C1 is not in tune with the resurvey plan, which is marked
as Exhibit B1 and that there is vast difference in A D line as per
Exhibits C1 and B1. Boundary could not be fixed as per Exhibit
C1. Hence, learned Principal Munsiff remitted Exhibits C1 and
W.P.(C) No.30686/2008
– 2 –
C2 to the Advocate Commissioner to measure the property as per
Exhibit B1 and submit plan. Petitioner is aggrieved by that order.
3. Learned counsel submitted that there is no dispute of
title between the parties and that Exhibit B1 was stealthily
introduced at the instance of respondent/defendant.
4. In paragraph 10 of the written statement, respondent
contended that Taluk Surveyor had measured the property and
fixed the survey between boundary. The properties of the
petitioner and the respondent and the latter had constructed a
compound wall on that boundary, from east to west at a length of
51 metres and height of 1 foot which, according to the
respondent, was destroyed by the petitioner.
5. The question whether Exhibit B1 could be acted upon
is not a matter to be decided by this Court at this stage. In the
case of dispute on boundary, it is necessary to have proper plans
W.P.(C) No.30686/2008
– 3 –
obtained after survey of the properties. While retaining Exhibit
C1(a) plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner with the
assistance of the Surveyor based on the document of title relied
on by the petitioner, the court has only directed measurement of
the properties as per Exhibit B1. It is open to the petitioner to
prefer objection to the report and plan being submitted by the
Commissioner. There is no reason to interfere with the order
challenged in this proceedings.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
skr
// True copy //
P.A. to Judge.