IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35177 of 2007(K)
1. KAMMANOL JAMEELA D/OSAIDU MAMMI, AGED
... Petitioner
1. KAMMANOL JAMEELA, D/O.SAIDU MAMMI,
Vs
1. KAMBIKETTIYA PARAMBATH NARAYANI,
... Respondent
2. KAMBIKETTIYA PARAMBATH SASI,
3. KAMBIKETTIYA PARAMBATH SATHYAN,
4. KAMBIKETTIYA PARAMBATH REENA,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :05/08/2008
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.35177 OF 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents the defendants in
O.S. 198 of 2004 on the file of Munsiff Court, Nadapuram. This
petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set
aside Ext.P1 and P2 orders passed by the Munsiff and issue a
direction to produce documents and to remit the report as
sought for in Ext.P5 and P7 applications.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and
respondents were heard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that
I.A. 1130 of 2007 was filed for production of the file relating to
petitioner and the field map of old survey 343/1 and 310/4 and
petitioner is claiming the property based on the old survey plan
and in such circumstances learned Munsiff should not have
dismissed the application under Ext.P1 order. Learned counsel
also argued that commissioner did not identify the property with
reference to old survey plan and the question whether the
WP(C)35177/2007 2
property is to be fixed with reference to resurvey or old survey
plan is to be decided on the evidence and without the data Court
cannot decide that question and therefore learned Munsiff
should have remitted the report to measure the property with
reference to old survey plan as sought for in Ext.P7 application.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents argued that the trial
Court considered the applications in the proper perspective and
dismissed them and there is no illegality or irregularity
warranting interference.
4. Ext.P5 petition shows that the prayer in the petition
was actually not to summon the documents as considered by the
learned Munsiff or sought for by the petitioner in the writ
petition. It was only an application for a Court certificate to
enable petitioner to obtain certified copy of the field map of old
survey 343/1 and 310/4. The case of petitioner is that
eventhough certified copy was applied for, Taluk Surveyor did
not issue the certified copy and therefore a Court certificate is to
be issued. Learned Munsiff should have issued a Court
certificate as sought for to enable petitioner to obtain the
document. Therefore Ext.P1 order is quashed and learned
Munsiff is directed to issue a Court certificate to enable
WP(C)35177/2007 3
petitioner to obtain the document stated therein.
5. Ext.P7 application was dismissed under Ext.P2 order.
Though the learned counsel argued that learned Munsiff should
have remitted the report to the commissioner for identification
with reference to the old survey plan, learned Munsiff dismissed
the application finding that resurvey has been finalized. I do not
find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference with
Ext.P7 order. Petitioner is entitled to adduce evidence in
support of her objections to the report of the commissioner and
is also entitled to challenge Ext.P2 order along with final
judgment, if it goes against her.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Okb/-