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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.