IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 330 of 2007()
1. P.K.NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED.67 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SANTHAMMA, W/O.P.K.NARAYANA PILLAI,
Vs
1. P.K.GOPALA PILLAI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
F.A.O. NOs. 330 & 336 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
These appeals are preferred against the order of
remand passed in the common judgment in A.S.Nos.15/02
and 16/02. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of
appeals are as follows. The plaintiffs in O.S.911/96 are one
P.K.Narayana Pillai and his wife. The defendant therein is
one Gopala Pillai. In O.S.834/96 the plaintiff is this Gopala
Pillai and the defendant is Narayana Pillai.
2. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.911/96 is that the
property described as item No.1 of the plaint schedule
property was obtained by the plaintiffs and the father of the
2nd plaintiff by virtue of a sale deed No.1064/67 of SRO
Aranmula. On the death of the father of the 2nd plaintiff, the
plaintiffs have became the absolute owners in possession of
the property. On the south and west of item No.1 there is a
serpent temple with a compound and it is described as item
F.A.O. Nos.330 & 336 OF 2007
-:2:-
No.2 in O.S.911/96. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.911/96
is to the effect that the defendant in the suit has disturbed
the natural boundary of item No.1 of the plaint schedule
property and is attempting to grab a portion of item No.1 of
the plaint schedule property into his possession. In
O.S.834/96 the defendant in O.S.911/96 would contend that
the property therein was obtained by the mother of the
plaintiff by virtue of the partition held in 1101 M.E. and
subsequently by virtue of the partition in 1112 M.E. it was
partitioned in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s property
in that suit is a serpent temple and the appurtenant land.
Now the crux of the matter is which is the property that has
been obtained by the plaintiff in O.S.911/96 under Ext.A1
and whether it is the property therein is now attempted to be
trespassed upon by the defendant in the said suit.
F.A.O. Nos.330 & 336 OF 2007
-:3:-
3. On the contra the contention of the plaintiff in the
other case is that the plaintiff in O.S.911/96 is attempting to
trespass into the serpent temple and the compound and
therefore he requests for an injunction. In order to resolve
the dispute between the parties it is absolutely necessary to
identify the property claimed by both parties in both suits
with reference to the title deeds and thereafter demarcate
the boundary between the two which will lead to the fixation
of the boundary. Now the appellate court finds the properties
have not been properly identified and therefore the matter
requires reconsideration. Since both the parties have come
in the party array as plaintiffs in suits, a correct decision can
be arrived at only by demarcating the properties claimed by
the parties with reference to their title deeds. If it is
approached in that angle then only there can be a proper
resolution of the dispute. The appellate court has directed
identification of the properties and therefore I do not find any
mistake committed by the Court below. The learned counsel
F.A.O. Nos.330 & 336 OF 2007
-:4:-
for the appellant would submit before me in another suit the
matter has been dealt with. If it is so when the matter
comes after remand it is for him to produce those documents
and convince the conscience of the Court regarding the
identification of the property. Needless to say when such a
document is produced the other side can oppose and the
matter can be heard. Therefore I do not disturb the finding
on the order of remand but make it very clear for a proper
resolution of the dispute between the parties, the properties
have to be identified with respect to their title deeds and
thereafter, after permitting the parties to adduce evidence,
the matter be disposed of in accordance with law.
FAOs are disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-