Sankara Narayanan vs Kanjana
2021 Latest Caselaw 5905 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

    THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 29TH MAGHA,1942

                      OP(C).No.1349 OF 2020

 ORDER DATED 18.05.2020 IN I.A.NO.1932/2019 IN OS 460/2014 ON THE
                FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM


PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

             SANKARA NARAYANAN,
             AGED 46 YEARS,
             S/O.NEELAKANDAN MOOSATH, MANGALATH ILLAM, PERUMANGOD
             DESOM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
             SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN
             SMT.SREEKALA KRISHNADAS

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

      1      KANJANA,
             AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.RAMANKUTTY, THACHAMBATTA VEEDU,
             VEERAMANGALAM DESOM, MANGOD AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 614 616.

      2      VIJAYAN,
             AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHANDRAN, VIJAYASREE HOUSE,
             KARUMANAMKURUSSI STREET, KARUMANAMKURUSSI AMSOM
             DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 503.

      3      CHERPPULASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
             REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
             CHERPPULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 503.

      4      RAMANKUTTY,
             S/O.SANKUNNY THARAKAN, THACHAMBATTA VEEDU,
             VEERAMANGALAM P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD
             DISTRICT - 614 616.

             R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C).No.1349 OF 2020                     2


                                    JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.460

of 2014. He filed I.A.No.1932 of 2019 before

Munsiff Court, Ottapalam seeking remittal of

commission report and plan submitted before the

court contending that the plan prepared is not

in accordance with the resurvey plan. The

court below did not accept the objection raised

and on the other hand, in para 8 of the

impugned order dated 18.05.2020 it found that

the plan was prepared as per the resurvey

records as evident from the plan itself.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner. He canvassed the objections raised

before the trial court over again before me

also.

3. I am of opinion that there is no

immediate reason to order remittal of the

report and plan. But at the same time, I am

satisfied that the plan and report can not be

treated to be conclusive at this stage of the

case. The learned counsel for the petitioner

made a forceful submission that Ext.P7

commission report and plan prepared by advocate

commissioner in a different proceeding reflect

the correct picture of the suit property. It is

to be, however, noted that the plan and report

were prepared in a proceeding in which the

defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are not parties.

However, the veracity of the impugned report

and plan is a matter for the trial court to

consider again when the petitioner adduces

evidence at the trial stage of the suit.

4. In the light of what has been said

above, I do not find any reason to disturb the

impugned report and plan submitted before the

court below for the time being.

In the result, this O.P is disposed of

permitting the petitioner to take all

objections available under law to the impugned

report and plan dated 18.3.2009 during the

course of the trial and when the objections are

so raised, the court below will consider the

entire evidence and decide as to whether the

plan and report assailed could be accepted. It

will be open to the court below to call for a

fresh report and plan in case they are not

sustainable for acceptable reasons. This being

a suit of 2014, there shall be a direction to

the court below to dispose of the suit within a

period of six months from the date of receipt

of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR, JUDGE pm

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT, O.S.NO.460/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 23/10/2013.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT, DATED 15/05/2015.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND DEFENDANT, DATED 26/02/2015.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND PLAN DATED 18/03/2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH I.A.NO.1932/2019 DATED 16/07/2019.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 4, DATED 17/08/2019 IN EXT.P5.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND PLAN DATED 26/04/2015.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1932/2019 IN O.S.NO.460/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM, DATED 18/05/2020.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL