Otti Govindan vs Sharadha
2021 Latest Caselaw 3777 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

                     OP(C).No.1989 OF 2020

     IA NO.7/2020 IN OS 156/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG

                          -----------


PETITIONER/DEFENDANT IN OS:

             OTTI GOVINDAN
             AGED 68 YEARS
             S/O. POKKAN, RESIDING A T CHATHAMATH, PEROLE
             VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 314.

             BY ADVS.
             SHRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
             SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFFS IN OS:

      1      SHARADHA
             AGED 68 YEARS
             W/O. ABOOTTY RESIDING AT MANDERAVALAPPIL,
             CHATHAMATH P.O. PEROLE VILLAGE,
             KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 314.

      2      RAJEEVAN,
             AGED 43 YEARS
             S/O. ABOOTTY RESIDING AT MANDERAVALAPPIL,
             CHATHAMATH P.O. PEROLE VILLAGE,
             KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 314.

      3      PRAMEELA,
             AGED 39 YEARS
             D/O. ABOOTTY RESIDING AT MANDERAVALAPPIL,
             CHATHAMATH P.O. PEROLE VILLAGE,
             KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 314.

      4      SHAJI,
             AGED 37 YEARS
             S/O. ABOOTTY RESIDING AT MANDERAVALAPPIL,CHATHAMATH
             P.O. PEROLE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 314.


     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                   SATHISH NINAN, J.
         ==================
              O. P. (C) No.1989 of 2020
         ==================
        Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2021

                            JUDGMENT

The application filed by the petitioner-

defendant seeking reception of documents in evidence was dismissed by the trial court, against

which this original petition.

2. The suit is one for a permanent prohibitory

injunction against trespass. The plaintiff's

evidence was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner-

defendant filed application for reception of copy

of the field measurement book. According to the

petitioner, there was an earlier proceeding under

the Survey of Boundaries Act which was suppressed

by the plaintiffs.

3. As rightly noticed by the trial court, the

suit being one for injunction simplicitor, cannot

be decided on the basis of the field measurement

book. Admittedly no issue relating to title has

been raised in the suit. In the circumstances, the

trial court was justified in dismissing the O. P. (C) No.1989 of 2020

application. The Original Petition fails and is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.1989 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.

156/2016 OF MUNSIFFS COURT HOSDRUG.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A NO. 7/2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF FIELD MEASUREMENT OF FIELD NO.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF FIELD MEASUREMENT OF FIELD NO.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ADDENDUM AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU OF CHIEF EXAMINATION DATED 9.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.12.2020 IN IA NO. 7 /2020 IN O.S. NO. 156/2016 OF MUNSIFFS COURT HOSDURG.

---------------