IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29913 of 2005(J)
1. VARGHESE GEORGE, PANACKAMATTATHU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE R.D.O. THIRUVALLA.
3. TALUK SURVEYOR, THIRUVALLA.
4. AKKAMMA THOMAS, VENGAZHI VADAKKETHIL
5. P.C.CHACKO, MANAPPURATHU HOUSE,
6. ANNAMMA SAMUEL, VAZHUVELI SAM VILLA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI.BABU CHERUKARA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :16/10/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
==================
W.P(C)No. 29913 of 2005
==================
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
On the death of the petitioner’s father, properties
belonging to the father devolved by succession on the
petitioner and his mother. In respect of the boundary of the
said property there was a dispute between the petitioner and
respondents 4 to 6. Mother filed O.S. No. 171/2002 in this
regard. An injunction order was also passed in that suit.
Although, the petitioner’s mother earlier applied for
measurement of the property, in view of the pendency of the
suit and the injunction order, the R.D.O. could not proceed
further in the matter. However, at the instance of the 6th
respondent, the Taluk Surveyor issued Ext.P5 notice to the
petitioner directing the petitioner to be present for
measurement and fixation of boundary. The petitioner is
challenging Ext.P5 order. According to the petitioner, since
the civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject matter if
the Taluk Surveyor measures the property and fixes the
boundaries, it would adversely affect the rights of the
petitioner and his mother. Further in view of the injunction
W.P(C)No. 29913 of 2005 – 2 –
granted by the Civil Court, no further proceedings can be taken
as contemplated in Ext.P5.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5. I am
of opinion that in so far as the matter is pending consideration
before the Civil Court namely; Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvalla in
O.S. No. 171/2002, further proceedings can be initiated only in
accordance with the decree in that suit. By interim order dated
25.10.2005 this Court has allowed survey to be completed but
it was directed that no change shall be affect in the physical
boundaries of the property. Accordingly, maintaining the
interim order, I direct that the question regarding the fixation
of boundaries shall be decided only in accordance with the
decision of the Civil Court.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs