IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SA.No. 512 of 1995(C)
1. VARGHESE THOMAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MARIAMMA AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
For Respondent :SRI.R.RAMADAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------
S.A. No 512 of 1995
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th June 2008
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S. No 336 of 1986 on the file of the Munsiff’s
Court, Thiruvalla who suffered a dismissal of his suit concurrently in both
the courts below is the appellant. The suit was one for fixing the eastern
boundary of the schedule property and for an injunction restraining the
defendants from trespassing into the schedule property. After
advancing vehement arguments before this court by the learned counsel
for the appellant canvassing contention to the effect that the green
shaded plot on the east of the red shaded plot in C2 plan also belongs to
the appellant and that the boundary of his property on the eastern side
has to be fixed as the SGFKJ line, having found that in view of the
decree passed in O.S. No 100 of 1964 the appellant will not be able to
claim any extent of property beyond east of the thodu which was in
existence at the time of preparation of the plan in O.S. No 100 of 1964 of
the Munsiff’s Court, Chengannur, he submits that the appellant will be
satisfied if a decree is passed allowing the appellant to put up the
eastern boundary of the schedule property as shown in Ext B2(a) plan
SA 512/95 2
which is plan prepared in O.S. No 100 of 1964 of the Munsiff’s Court,
Chengannur as that has been agreed upon also by the respondents,
vide para 7 of their written statement. Counsel for the respondent
also has no objection, but he points out that the description of the
property in the plaint as it exists at present after amendment of the
plaint, vide I.A. No 605 of 1988, is in consonance with Ext C2 plan
prepared by the commissioner in this case and that therefore while
accepting Ext B2(a) plan for the purpose of passing a decree in this
suit the description of the property incorporating survey numbers
other than survey number 179/2 originally incorporated in the
description of the property in the schedule to the plaint may not be
taken into account. The said submission has to be accepted as the
appellant-plaintiff does not at present rely on Ext C2 plan prepared
by the commissioner in this suit, but wants to rely on Ext B2(a) plan
got prepared in O.S. No 100 of 1964 aforesaid.
2. In the result, on consent of parties there shall be decree
passed in the suit fixing the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule
property as per Ext B2(a) plan. This means that the straight line
drawn from south to north on the east of the schedule property which
bears measurements 124, 26,59,67,104 and 100 along with its bent
SA 512/95 3
towards east on its easternmost end shall be the eastern boundary of
the schedule property which the appellant-plaintiff has on the west of
the said line. The boundary of the schedule property is fixed
accordingly. Respondents are restrained from trespassing into any
portion of the property on the west of the said boundary line. Parties
to suffer their own costs.
Ext B2(a) plan shall form part of the decree in the suit.
Sd/-
K.P. BALACHANDRAN
Judge
26/06/2008
en
[true copy]