IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21639 of 2009(O)
1. SMT. ROSILY W/O. RAPHEL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PADMAVATHY AMMA, W/O. LATE SATHYANATHAN
... Respondent
2. SUNIL S/O. LATE SATHYANATHAN NAIR,
3. LAKSHMI D/O. LATE SATHYANATHAN NAIR
4. THE TALUK SURVEYOR,(JOINT COMMISIONR)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.JOHN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :31/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.21639 OF 2009 (O)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. to call for the records relating to the suit
O.S.No.225/1995 and direct the learned
Munsiff, Paravur to defer the trial of the suit
until a report and plan are submitted by the
commissioner and the Taluk Surveyor
appointed in the case.
ii. to direct an enquiry to be made into the
non availability of the survey records in the
survey department preventing the just
disposal of the suit.
iii. to stay the trial proceedings in the suit
O.S.No.225/1995 of the Munsiff’s Court,
Paravur till the disposal of the writ petition.
iv. to grant such other reliefs as could be
granted in the nature and circumstances of
the case.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.225 of 1995 on the
file of the Munsiff’s Court, Paravur. Suit originally was filed
WPC.21639/09 2
for permanent prohibitory injunction, but, later on amended
for declaration of title and recovery of possession. An
Advocate Commission was taken out by the plaintiff to
measure out the suit property with reference to survey
records. The Commissioner has filed a report stating that the
suit property could not be identified with the survey records
available with the surveyor. Certified copies of the sketches of
the sub division relating to the suit property were produced.
The Commissioner was again appointed, and, an interim
report was filed by that Commissioner stating the enquiry
conducted at the village offices disclosed that the sub division
sketches relating to the suit property are not available in the
village offices. Without issuing any further direction to the
Commissioner, the case has been listed for trial on 1.8.2009, is
the grievance canvassed in the petition for the reliefs
aforementioned invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested
with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find
no notice to the respondents is necessary in the facts
WPC.21639/09 3
presented, and, hence, it is dispensed with.
4. Suit filed for injunction has been subsequently
amended for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Recovery of possession of the suit property, as a whole, as
having been subsequently trespassed upon by the
respondents, is sought for in the amended plaint. An interim
report is seen filed by the second Commissioner as seen from
Ext.P3 as early on 1.4.2009. If at all the petitioner had any
case that the identification of the property is possible with the
copies of the sketches produced by the Assistant Director of
Survey, she could have brought it to the notice of the court
and applied for issuing proper directions to the Commissioner.
At the fag end after the suit has been listed for trial, she has
filed this writ petition, that is, two days before the date fixed
for recording of evidence. After going through the copy of
plaint and other materials produced with the writ petition, I
find this is not a fit case where the issue of any direction or
orders to the court below as sought for by the petitioner is
called for. Petitioner has no case that her property is
WPC.21639/09 4
identifiable with the survey records produced by the Assistant
Director of Survey nor with reference to any title deeds.
I find the writ petition lacks merit, and, it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp