Kerala High Court
P.Mariyappan vs The State Ofkerala on 25 July, 2025
2025:KER:55204
O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
OP NO. 38180 OF 2002
PETITIONER:
AMBROSE
S/O.JOSEPH,
MOONGALAR,
PUDUVAL, MOONGALAR KARA, PERIYAR VILLAGE.
BY ADV SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE TASILDAR,
PEERMADE TALUK
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERIYAR VILLAGE
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUMALI VILLAGE,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2025:KER:55204
O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002
2
5 HARISONS MALAYALAM LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT BRISTOW ROAD,
WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI 682003, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN
SMT.PRIYA MAHESH
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25.07.2025, ALONG WITH OP.No.38885/2002 AND
O.P.No.38926/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55204
O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
OP NO. 38885 OF 2002
PETITIONER:
GRACY
MOONGALAR PUDUVAL,
MOONGALAR KARA,
PERIYAR VILLAGE.
BY ADV SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
PEERMADE TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERIYAR VILLAGE,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUMALI VILLAGE,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2025:KER:55204
O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002
4
5 HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD.
REGISTERED OFFICE AT BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON
ISLAND, KOCHI-682002, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN
SMT.PRIYA MAHESH
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV CHAITHAN KRISHNAN,
ADV RASHMI K.M, SR.GP
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25.07.2025, ALONG WITH OP.38180/2002, 38926/2002,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55204
O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
OP NO. 38926 OF 2002
PETITIONER:
P.MARIYAPPAN
S/O.PALANIYANDI,
MOONGALAR PUTHUVAL, MOONGALAR KARA,
PERIYAR VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)
SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
PEERMADE TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERIYAR VILLAGE,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2025:KER:55204
O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002
6
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUMALI VILLAGE,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
5 HARISONS MALAYALAM LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON
ISLAND, KOCHI - 682002, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
ADV RASHMI K.M, SR.GP
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN
SMT.PRIYA MAHESH
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25.07.2025, ALONG WITH OP.38885/2002 AND
OP.No.38180/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55204
O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002
7
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926 of 2002
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
As common issues are involved and similar orders are under challenge in these original petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, these cases are disposed by this common judgment.
2. O.P.No.38180/2002 was filed aggrieved by order of the Sub Court, Kattappana dated 23.11.2002 in E.A.No.186/2002 in E.P.No.58/2000 in O.S.No.255/1994. Petitioner is the respondent/judgment debtor before the court below. By the impugned order the Sub Court, Kattappana directed Circle Inspector of Police, Kumily to assist Amin and Surveyor as the petitioner offered resistance when the said officers went to effect survey and delivery in the execution proceedings. Similar order dated 19.11.2002 passed in 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 8 E.A.No.184/2002 in E.P.No.56/2000 is under challenge in O.P.No.38885/2002. In O.P.No.38926/2002 another analogous order dated 19.11.2002 passed by the Sub Court in E.A.No.185/2002 in E.P.No.57/2000 is under challenge.
3. In O.S.No.260/1994 and other similar suits the Sub Court, Kattappana passed decrees holding that the 5 th respondent in these original petitions is entitled to recover possession of the respective plaint schedule properties from the defendants. Defendants were ordered to surrender vacant possession of the suit property. Survey plans submitted by the Advocate Commissioner was appended to the decrees.
4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of thee original petitions are narrated hereunder:-
As per patta No.1338 dated 25.10.1971 issued under Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, an extent of 28 cents of land in Sy.No.215 of Periyar Village in Peerumade Taluk was assigned to one Annamma Joseph. Later, Kumily 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 9 Village was formed and the survey number of the property under the said village also remained as 215. The property was partitioned among the children of Annamma Joseph after her demise. Petitioner in O.P.No.38926/2002 got five cents of land from Varghese, son of Annamma Joseph. Petitioners in the other original petitions are children of Annamma Joseph. Entire extent of 52.75 acres of land in Sy.No.136 of Periyar Village was in the name of Malayalam Plantations Limited, presently Harrisons Malayalam Limited. The company filed O.S.Nos.260/1994 against the petitioner in O.P.No.38926/2002, 257/1994 against the petitioner in O.P,No.3885/2002 and 255/1994 against the petitioner in O.P.No.38180/2002 for recovery of possession of 2.3 cents, 3.628 cents and 9.5 cents respectively. Petitioners defended the suits. They claimed that the properties in their possession and enjoyment devolved on them from Annamma Joseph who was granted patta by the Government under the Land Assignment Rules. They contended 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 10 that their possession was lawful and they have constructed buildings in the properties obtained by them. They resisted the claim of the 5th respondent company and contended that it had no right, title or possession over the 28 cents of land which was assigned to late Annamma Joseph. According to them, no part of any land in Sy.No.215 was included in the lands given to the 5th respondent by the erstwhile Government of Travancore for raising plantation.
5. The Sub Court, Kattappana after trial, decreed the suits. The petitioners did not challenge the judgments and decrees passed against them by the Sub Court. Thus the judgments and decrees passed in the suits became final long ago. Thereafter, the 5th respondent company filed execution petitions. In the execution proceedings also the petitioners entered appearance. The court proceeded further and as discernible from the impugned orders, directed to effect delivery. Because of the resistance offered by the petitioners 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 11 the Amin and Surveyor deputed could not effect delivery. Thereafter, application was filed by the 5 th respondent decree holder for police aid. The petitioners raised objections mainly regarding identification of decree schedule properties. The learned Sub Judge held that there was already a plan correctly identifying the properties. It was also noted that the petitioners did not challenge the veracity of the report regarding resistance offered by the judgment debtors. Hence, the court found that there was sufficient reason to order police aid. Consequently, the impugned orders were passed.
6. In these original petitions the petitioners contended that the attempt of the 5th respondent was to grab their lands. Their predecessor-in-interest was granted patta with respect to 28 cents of land by the Government and the same is indisputable. Petitioners contend that they are holding parts of the patta land and hence the claim of the 5 th respondent was untenable. Petitioners contended that land comprised in 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 12 Sy.Nos.215, 216 and 217 were Government waste lands as evident from the relevant documents. The 5th respondent had obtained properties comprised in Sy.Nos136, 138, etc. and they are not entitled to make any claims with respect to lands comprised in Sy.No.215. Further, they contended that sufficient or fair opportunity was not afforded to them by the Sub Court to defend the suit. They further submitted that the decrees obtained by the 5th respondent are illegal, void and unexecutable. They further contended that the impugned orders were passed by the Sub Court without understanding the facts and circumstances of the case and analysing as to whether the decree was executable or not. They therefore prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the respondents 1 to 4 may be directed to identify the property of the petitioners as also not to dispossess them from their properties presently comprised in Sy.No.215 of Kumily Village.
2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 13
7. The 5th respondent filed separate counter affidavits in all original petitions. The company contended that the decree schedule properties were clearly measured and identified by an Advocate Commissioner and the plans submitted formed part of the decrees. Reports of the Advocate Commissioner in respective suits have been produced along with the counter affidavits. Decrees was passed after valid contest by the petitioners and there was no fraud or illegality in obtaining the decrees. The 5th respondent further contended that title or possession of the petitioners claimed to be in Sy.No.215 of Periyar/Kumily Village does not preclude the respondents from recovering possession of the decree schedule properties. Further the 5th respondent contended that delivery of property was sought only in respect of decree schedule properties in Sy.No.136. The company pointed out that when the Amin along with Surveyor proceeded for effecting delivery obstruction was caused by the petitioners and therefore the order passed by the 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 14 execution court for police aid cannot be held as illegal or improper. According to the 5 th respondent, the attempt of the petitioners is only to object and obstruct the execution of the decree.
8. Second respondent also filed counter affidavits in these original petitions. It was stated by the Tahsildar, Peerumade in his counter affidavit that late Annamma Joseph was granted patta for 28 cents of dry land in Sy.No.215 of Periyar Village in 1971. When Periyar Village was divided to form Kumily Village the whole land comprised in Sy.No.215 of Periyar Village came under Kumily Village under the same survey number. Partition deed No.581/1 dated 20.02.1993 was registered in the Sub Registrar's Office, Peerumade by her children after the demise of Smt.Annamma Joseph. On verification and enquiry by the Taluk Surveyor, it was found that the 28 cents of land, which includes the lands in possession of the petitioners, is in Sy.Nos.135 and 136 of Periyar Village. As 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 15 per the basic tax register, 52 acres and 75 cents of land in Sy.No.136 is in the name of the 5 th respondent. 14 acres and 40 cents of land in Sy.No.135 is noted as road. Though patta was issued to Annamma Joseph for 28 cents in Sy.No.215 of Periyar Village which later became Sy.No.215 of Kumily Village, land now in possession of the petitioners is in Sy.Nos.136 and 135 of Periyar Village. The 5 th respondent has no claim over land in Sy.No.215 of Kumily Village. But the land occupied by the petitioners is in the survey number which is in the name of the 5th respondent. The 2nd respondent stated that the contentions in the original petitions were not liable to be countenanced.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
10. Under Article 227 of the Constitution this Court exercises a limited jurisdiction. Ambit of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is well defined. The Hon'ble 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 16 Supreme Court in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel [(2022) 4 SCC 181] observed thus:-
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 17 axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice."
11. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the pleadings of the petitioners, in my considered view the attempt of the petitioners is to contend and establish that the 5th respondent company had no right to seek the relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties, against them. In other words, petitioners have made another attempt to contest the claim of the 5th respondent in the suits on merits by filing these original petitions, which is impermissible. This Court cannot ignore the fact that the suits were filed by the 5th respondent company long ago in 1994. Petitioners contested the suits. On conclusion of trial, the suits were decreed. Petitioners did not file appeals against the judgments and decrees. Hence, the decrees became final. Thereafter, the 5th respondent/decree holder filed Execution Petitions in 2000. Petitioners resisted the execution proceedings 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 18 also. Finally, delivery was directed to be effected. Petitioners obstructed the same. Hence, the 5th respondent sought police aid. Impugned orders were passed by the learned Sub Judge allowing the applications for police aid. The orders passed by the learned Sub Judge cannot be held as illegal or perverse in any view of the matter. No other considerations are normally germane in writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the said view of the matter I have no hesitation to hold that no case has been made out in these original petitions for interference. Hence, the original petitions are only to be dismissed.
12. Petitioners have a case that they are socially, economically and educationally backward. According to them they have no other properties and they never made any deliberate attempt to encroach into any properties. This Court, on 02.02.2012, passed an elaborate interim order in these cases taking note of the grievances of the petitioners that they do not 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 19 have any other land and they occupied their present holdings on the strength of the patta granted by the Government to late Annamma Joseph. This Court directed the respondents to find out whether the petitioners are in occupation of any extent of land in Sy.No.215 of Periyar Village, now in Kumily Village with the same number. Taking note of the stand of the Government that patta was granted to Annamma Joseph for 28 cents in Sy.No.215, this Court observed that it is highly necessary that the Government considers the matter sympathetically to allot land to the petitioners and other legal representative of Annamma Joseph for a total extent of 28 cents in Sy.No.215 of Kumily Village as included in the patta granted to late Annamma Joseph. The said order was passed obviously on the basis of equitable considerations. A memo was filed by the Special Government Pleader (Revenue) on 07.03.2012 producing a report of the Tahsildar, Peerumade. The Tahsildar stated that verification of the sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 20 showed that the land in possession of the petitioners are in Sy.Nos.135 and 136 which were not assignable. Further it was stated that a mistake might have crept while noting the survey number in the patta issued to late Annamma Joseph. The Tahsildar further stated that the matter was under consideration of the District Collector and reference was also made to the Government. However, even after passage of more than 13 years the Government did not take any noteworthy steps in this regard. However, the original petitions remained pending on the files of this Court from 2002 and the decree holder was denied the fruits of the decree for about 23 years on account of interim order granted by this Court. In view of this situation, another interim order was passed on 23.06.2025 directing that the matter shall be attended by the District Collector, Idukki on priority and appropriate decision shall be taken at the earliest. However, when these cases were taken up for hearing on 23.06.2025 the learned Government Pleader was not in position 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 21 to point out any significant development in these matters. Only instruction given to her was that the Government have filed a civil suit against the respondent company for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The District Collector, Idukki did not even care to file an affidavit pursuant to the interim order dated 23.06.2025, though directions in the order were to be complied by the said officer. I refrain from commenting further on the said conduct.
13. From the pleadings of the Government in these cases and also from the report of the Tahsildar produced in 2012 it is evident that the assignment made in favour of late Annamma Joseph was with respect to property comprised in Sy.No.215 of Periyar Village which now is in Kumily Village. Government has stated that the petitioners are however in occupation of lands comprised in Sy.Nos.135 and 136 of Periyar Village. Therefore, the Government cannot ignore the plight of the petitioners. As directed by this Court in the interim order dated 02.02.2012 the 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 22 Government ought to have taken action sympathetically to save the petitioners from becoming landless. Regrettably, the orders passed by this Court on 02.02.2012 and 23.06.25, taking note of the plight of the petitioners which is also imputable to the mistakes committed while issuing patta to the predecessor in interest, did not evoke any earnest response from the part of the Government. Under such circumstances, I find it appropriate to issue direction to the first respondent to take a final decision in this matter and to provide possible solace within the framework of law to the petitioners. This shall be done without fail within a period of four months from today.
14. The original petitions are dismissed with the above observations and direction to the 1 st respondent. However, I direct the Sub Court, Kattappana, purely on equitable considerations, to keep on hold further proceedings in the Execution Petitions involved in these Original Petitions for a period of four months from today as the Government has been 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 23 directed to address the issue of the petitioners within 4 months. The Sub Court shall thereafter proceed with the Execution Petitions.
Original Petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 24 APPENDIX OF OP 38180/2002 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF PARTITION DEED No.581/1 DTD.20.2.1993 OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PEERMADE.
EXT.P2 COPY OF PATTA ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR PEERMADE
AS PER CASE No.LA.131/PERIYAR/68 TO THE
PETITIONER'S MOTHER SMT.JOSEPH ANNAMMA ON
25.10.1971.
EXT.P3 COPY OF RECEIPT DTD.18.2.75 ISSUED FROM THE
VILLAGE OFFICE PERIYAR TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DTD.22.2.1977 ISSUED
FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE PEERMADE TO THE
PETITIONER'S MOTHER.
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DTD.15.3.1999 ISSUED
FROM THE KUMALY VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE
PETITIONER'S MOTHER.
EXT.P6 COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE No.B2.26/2001-2002
DTD.7.12.2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE VANDIPERIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXT.P7 COPY OF SCHEDULE OF LANDS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TRAVANCORE AND ATTESTED BY THE OFFICERS OF THE PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF THE 5th RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8 COPY OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD.3.11.98 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.No.255/94 OF THE SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA.
EXT.P9 COPY OF ORDER DTD.23.11.2002 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA IN E.A.No.186/2002 IN E.P.No.58/2000 IN OS.No.255/1994.
2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 25 APPENDIX OF OP NO.38885/2002 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 COPY OF PATTA ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR PEERMADE AS PER CASE NO.LA.131/PERIYAR/68 TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER SMT.JOSEPH ANNAMMA ON 25.10.1971.
EXT.P2 COPY OF RECEIPT DTD.18.2.75 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE PERIYAR TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER.
EXT.P3 COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DTD.22.2.1977 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE PEERMADE TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER.
EXT.P4 COPY OF RECEIPT DTD.15.3.1999 ISSUED FROM THE KUMALY VILLAGE OFFICE TO TEH PETITIONER'S MOTHER. EXT.P5 COPY OF SCHEDULE OF LANDS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TRAVANCORE AND ATTESTED BY THE OFFICERS OF THE PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 COPY OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD.3.11.1998 IN O.S.No.257/1994 OF THE SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA.
EXT.P7 COPY OF ORDER DTD.19.11.2002 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA IN E.A.No.184/2002 IN E.P.No.56/2000 IN O.S.No.257/1994.
2025:KER:55204 O.P.Nos.38180, 38885 & 38926/2002 26 Appendix of O.P.No.38926/2002 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 COPY OF PATTA ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR PEERMADE AS PER CASE No.LA.131/PERIYAR/68 TO JOSEPH ANNAMMA.
EXT.P2 COPY OF RECEIPT DTD.18.2.1975 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE PERIYAR TO JOSEPH ANNAMMA.
EXT.P3 COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DTD.22.2.77 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE PEERMADE TO JOSEPH ANNAMMA.
EXT.P4 COPY OF RECEIPT DTD.15.3.1999 ISSUED FROM THE KUMALY VILLAGE OFFICE TO JOSEPH ANNAMMA.
EXT.P5 COPY OF SCHEDULE OF LANDS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TRAVANCORE AND ATTESTED BY THE OFFICERS OF THE PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF THE 5th RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 COPY OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD.3.11.1998 IN O.S.No.260/1994 OF THE SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA FILED BY THE 5th RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7 COPY OF ORDER DTD.19.11.2002 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA IN E.A.No.185/2002 IN E.P.No.57/2000.