IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31013 of 2009(O)
1. T.P.RAJAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. K.M.THANKAMMA,
Vs
1. NELLIKUZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. SAJI SOUPARNIKA,
3. SANTHA SUKUMARAN, W/O.SUKUMARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.DILIP
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.ELAYATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :15/09/2010
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
-------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 31013 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The Writ petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S No.122 of 2009
on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Muvattupuzha. The
respondents are the defendants in the suit. This suit was filed for
permanent prohibitory injunction. The Writ Petition is filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside Ext.P6
order of the Munsiff’s Court.
2. I.A No. 2431/2009 is a petition filed by the defendants in
the suit for issuance of a commission for measuring the plaint
schedule property and the property adjacent to the plaint
schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.
2431/2009, it is stated that there is very old thodu is on the
eastern, southern and northern side of the plaint schedule
property and there is thodu puramboke on the eastern side of the
plaint schedule property. It is also stated that the suit was filed
by wrongly including a portion of the puramboke on the eastern
side of the plaint schedule property. The grievance of the
petitioners in the I.A is that for a proper determination of the
WP(C) NO. 31013 of 2009 2
dispute between the parties, the plaint schedule property and the
adjoining property are to be measured as per survey records and
on the basis of the documents relied on by the plaintiffs.
3. The prayer in the I.A was opposed by the plaintiffs. They
contended that the suit is for injunction simplicitor, the question
is as to whether the plaintiffs’ possession over the plaint
schedule property is proved. The measurement of the plaint
schedule property and the adjoining property on the basis of the
survey records is quite unnecessary and therefore, the prayer in
the I.A is not allowable.
4. After considering the contentions of both sides, the court
allowed the petition and the court found that defendants have a
case that plaintiffs included the puramboke land within the plaint
schedule property. In such circumstance, the puramboke land
lying adjacent to the property can be ascertained only by a
survey measurement. The court found that for the proper
adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the prayer for
issuance of a commission for measurement of the property and
the adjoining puramboke land is necessary. I do not find any
WP(C) NO. 31013 of 2009 3
valid ground to interfere with Ext.P6 order passed by the
Munsiff’s Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the constitution of India.
The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE
ln