Sandhya Rani vs Appukuttan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4267 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
     THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                          OP(C) NO. 3 OF 2017
   AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2016 IN I.A.NO.4020/2016 IN OS
           503/2011 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER/3RD DEFENDANT/PETITIONER:

           SANDHYA RANI,
           AGED 32 YEARS,
           W/O.SHAJI, AGED 32 YEARS, M.S.BHAVAN, ULLAS NAGAR,
           KLOTTUKUNNAM, NELLANAD VILLAGE,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

           BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN


RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT:

           APPUKUTTAN,
           S/O.SREEDHARAN NADAR, CHERUKONDATHY VEEDU,
           KEEZHAYIKONAM, VENJARAMOODU P.O., NELLANAD VILLAGE,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695607.

           BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ


     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C).No.3 OF 2017

                                        2




                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein, who is the 3rd

defendant in O.S.No.503/2011 pending before

the Principal Munsiff Court, Nedumangad has

filed this Original Petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Order in I.A.No.4020/2016 dated

14.11.2016 in the above suit, is under

challenge in this Original Petition.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Precisely, the 3rd defendant, who

purchased properties from the defendants,

when got impleaded in the party array, after

filing written statement in the year 2014,

filed by the present petitioner for

appointing a Survey Commission to measure out

the details of the plaint schedule property.

5. The learned Munsiff dismissed the OP(C).No.3 OF 2017

same holding that defendants 3 and 4 not

filed any objection in the Commission Report

already filed. It was held further that there

is no necessity to measure the properties

again based on the re-survey plan.

6. Though the learned counsel for the

petitioner/3rd defendant urged appointment of

a Commission as sought for, it is argued by

the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that,

earlier, as on 05.12.2013, an exhaustive

commission report and plan filed before the

trial court and the same are sufficient to

decide the dispute in between the parties. He

also submitted that even defendants 1 and 2

or the additional defendants not filed any

objection to the report, so far.

7. In order to ascertain the veracity of

the Commission Report submitted to be filed

on 15.12.2013, records of the court below

have been called for. On verification, it OP(C).No.3 OF 2017

appears that as on 31.08.2011, a local

Commission Report with the rough sketch were

filed and, subsequently, the Survey

Commission was appointed and the said

Commissioner filed report on 05.12.2013,

showing the nature and lay of the entire

properties based on the title deed

description. As per the petition on hand, a

measurement on the basis of a re-survey plan

is the prayer. It is the settled law that tax

receipts or revenue records shall not confer

title to any body, though the same merely

raises presumption as to possession supported

by other convincing evidence.

8. In view of the matter, there is no

necessity to get another Commission Report

and Surveyor's plan. Therefore, the order

impugned is perfectly in order since the same

does not suffer from any perversity,

illegality or arbitrariness. OP(C).No.3 OF 2017

Accordingly, this Original Petition

stands dismissed.

It appears that the suit is of the year

2011 directed to be disposed of, by the Apex

as well as this Court, repeatedly. In this

context, the learned counsel for the

plaintiffs submitted that a direction may be

given to the trial court to dispose of the

suit at the earliest.

Though the learned counsel for the

respondent opposed the said plea, having

noticed the nature of the suit as one under

the five year old category, I direct the

learned Munsiff to dispose of the case, on or

before 31.07.2022.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE WW OP(C).No.3 OF 2017

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 3/2017

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.503/2011.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2347/2011 OF VAMANAPURAM SRO.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 22-02-2013.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY I.A.NO.4020/2016.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14-11-2016 IN I.A.

NO.4020/2016 IN O.S.NO.503/2011 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD.