IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 233 of 2011(O)
1. NARAYANIKUTTY GUPTHAN, S/O.POOKKATTIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MALATHI AMMA,
... Respondent
2. JANAKI AMMA,
3. ACHUTHANKUTTI NAIR,
4. BHASKARAN NAIR,
5. INDIRA,
6. RAJAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :18/01/2011
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------
O.P(C).No.233 OF 2011
------------------------------
th
Dated this the 18 day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 2007 on the file
of the Court of the Munsiff of Ottappalam filed
I.A.No.1199 of 2009 for setting aside the
Commissioner’s report and plan and to appoint
another Commissioner. The court below dismissed the
application by the order impugned in this Original
Petition.
2. The plaintiff claimed title to the property
in old survey Nos.26/1 and 26/2 of Sreekrishnapuram
village. The property of the defendants lies on the
northern side of the plaint schedule property.
According to the defendants, their property is in
Survey No.25/5. The court below noticed that the
plaintiff has no case that he is having any
property in Survey No.25/5. Likewise the
defendants have no case that their property is
O.P(C).No.233 OF 2011 2
included in Survey No.26/1.
3. The court below stated in the order impugned
that going by the pleadings, the question to be
resolved is, in which Survey Number the disputed
portion of the property is situated. A Commissioner
was appointed and later that report was remitted
for inspection of the property with reference to
survey records. A Private Surveyor assisted the
Commissioner. Now the petitioner wants the
property to be measured on the basis of resurvey
with the help of the Taluk Surveyor. No case is
projected in the pleadings on the basis of
resurvey. The court below held that all the
necessary facts have been reported by the
Commissioner and that no grounds are made out to
set aside the report and plan submitted by the
Commissioner.
4. All the contentions of the parties have been
considered by the court below in great detail and
O.P(C).No.233 OF 2011 3
it was held that it is not necessary to have an
inspection of the property in the manner suggested
by the petitioner. No grounds are made out for
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
The Original Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms