Subramanian vs Rajan Alias Rajachandran on 29 February, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 7079 of 2008(P)


1. SUBRAMANIAN, AGEED 59 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RAJAN ALIAS RAJACHANDRAN
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :29/02/2008

 O R D E R
                               M.N.KRISHNAN,J.

                        =========================

                           W.P.(C) NO.7079   OF 2008

                        =========================

                   Dated this the 29th  day of February 2008


                                    JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed to direct the Munsiff, Trichur to

consider E.A.634/2008 in E.P.887/2005 in O.S.37/1997 and to

stay further proceedings. By an earlier order in W.P.(C)

32757/2007 this Court has laid down the procedure to be

adopted by the court below re-iterating that what is to be done

by the Court while executing a compromise decree is to

implement the intention of the parties and see that the terms of

the compromise are implemented. It is seen from the

compromise petition that a surveyor has gone to the property

earlier and had submitted a sketch whereby the yellow shaded

portion is shown as the entitlement of the plaintiff and the green

shaded portion as the entitlement of the defendant. It is further

re-iterated therein that a fence has to be put up between these

two. So when an execution petition is filed, the court has to first

fix the line where the boundary is to be fixed and either fencing

or construction of a compound wall is to be permitted thereafter

W.P.(c)No.7079/2008 2

only. It shall not be done by the Commissioner while fixing the

boundary line for the reason that the parties may have objection

to the Commissioner’s report in such cases. Therefore, I direct

the court below to permit the Commissioner, who is already

inspecting the property, to finish the work and submit a report

and plan and then direct the court to consider the objections of

the parties on that plan and report by permitting them to adduce

evidence and then decide the boundary line separating the two

properties, fix it and then implement that order by directing the

Commissioner to go again to the property and construct the fence

or the compound wall, as the case may be. It is further directed

that the Commissioner shall not effect any construction in the

property till a final adjudication is made by the court.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

css/