IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22232 of 2010(O)
1. SUHARA,AGED 55,D/O.MUHAMMED HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NABEESAKUTTY,D/O.N.P.MUHAMMED HAJI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :16/07/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.C.No.22232 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 16th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by defendant No.7 in O.S.No.515 of
2000 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur. That is a
suit for partition. Petitioner contended that she is in possession of
item Nos.3 and 4 as per settlement deed No.1340 of 1971 and
assignment deed No.747 of 1975. At the time of argument it was
contended that properties are lying contiguous without any
demarcation or boundary. To disprove that, petitioner wanted an
Advocate Commissioner to be appointed and filed Ext.P3,
application for the purpose. That application was dismissed by the
learned Sub Judge which is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. It is seen that in the plaint itself, respondent/plaintiffs
have a contention that she along with other co-owners including
petitioner is in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. No
application for commission was taken at that time to show that
there is no such joint possession of the entire suit property. It is at
the fag end that applications for commission and to reopen the case
for evidence is filed. Learned Sub Judge was not inclined to accept
those applications. I do not find reasons to interfere. If any
argument is advanced by the respondent or other contestants as to
validity of the documents relied on by petitioner, it is open to the
W.P.C.No.22232 of 2010
: 2 :
petitioner to raise appropriate arguments based on burden of proof
in that regard. Even if it is assumed that the case is decided
against petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to challenge
correctness of the dismissal of Ext.P3, application in the appeal
that may be preferred.
In the circumstance, I do not find reason to interfere with the
order under challenge.
Writ petition is dismissed.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-