Ramalingam vs Dr.Varghese on 2 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5568 of 2008(K)


1. RAMALINGAM, S/O.VELLAYAPPAN, AGED 58
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DR.VARGHESE, S/O.KORATHU, AGED 65
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.C.DEVASIA

                For Respondent  :SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :02/06/2008

 O R D E R
                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                    ...........................................
                  WP(C).No. 5568                 OF 2008
                   ............................................
         DATED THIS THE 2nd                   DAY OF JUNE, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.83 of 2005 on the file of

Munsiff Court, Devikulam. Respondent is the plaintiff. The suit

was filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.

A survey commission was appointed by the court on application

filed by respondent/plaintiff. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 petition for a

direction to the Commissioner to measure the property with

reference to the sketch and mahazar available in the file in

L.A.161 of 1996 of Taluk office, Udumbanchola as well as

possession certificate and sketch available in the Taluk Office

file. Under Ext.P4 order, the petition was dismissed. It is

challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution

of India.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

The argument of learned counsel is that learned Munsiff should

have directed the Commissioner to identify the property with

reference to the sketches and the possession certificate available

in the Taluk Office file and as it was not allowed, Ext.P4 order is

to be quashed. Petitioner did not produce the certified copies of

WP(C) 5568/2008 2

the sketches or the certificate, based on which, Commissioner is

sought to be directed to identify the property. Petitioner is not

entitled to file application with direction to the Commissioner in

respect of the materials, which are not available in court. Hence

I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P4 order.

Petitioner is at liberty to produce the documents and seek

directions from court. If such applications are filed, learned

Munsiff has to consider the same and pass appropriate order in

accordance with law.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-