[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sreejith.P.R vs P.Prasad on 27 January, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 2728 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2025 IN WP(C) NO.41878 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SREEJITH.P.R., AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.LATE RAJAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA.P.O,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
2 SREEJA.P.R., AGED 40 YEARS
D/O.LATE RAJAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA.P.O,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
3 REMANI RAJAN, AGED 75 YEARS
W/O.LATE RAJAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA.P.O,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
BY ADV SHRI.B.RAJEEV KOYICKAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 P.PRASAD, AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.P.G.PANICKER @ GOVINDA PANICKER, ATHIRA HOUSE,
UDAYAMPEROOR, POOTHOTTA.P.O, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL)
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVENUE
ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
4 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK
AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
2026:KER:6344
WA NO. 2728 OF 2025
2
SRI.AMAL GEORGE
SHRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA
SHRI.PARAMESWARAN S.D.
SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S. - GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6344
WA NO. 2728 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellants challenge the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.41878/2025, asserting
that Ext.P10 communication of the Deputy Collector to the
Tahsildar (Land Records) is improper, impermissible and
contrary to the earlier judgment of this Court in WA
No.1621/2024, namely Ext.P7.
2. Sri.Rajeev Koyickal - appearing for the appellants,
argued that, as evident from Ext.P7 itself, even while the learned
Division Bench of this Court allowed the survey of the property,
it was clarified that it shall not be used for the purpose of the
civil suits pending between the parties. He argued that
ineluctably, therefore, the Deputy Collector ought to have heard
both parties before Ext.P10 could have been issued; but alleged
that he proceeded to do so without giving his clients any such
opportunity. He contended that, consequently, Ext.P10 is
unlawful and runs wholly contrary to the specific directives in
Ext.P7 judgment.
3. Sri.George Thomas Mevade, learned senior counsel,
2026:KER:6344
WA NO. 2728 OF 2025
instructed by Sri.Amal George - appearing for the first
respondent, however, argued that, as anyone would discern
from Ext.P7 - even from an ex facie reading of it, the learned
Division Bench refused to interdict the survey as sought for by
his client, but only rendered it limpid that the measurements
shall not be used for the purpose of the suits between the
parties. He insisted that the appellants have not filed a suit, or
that the suit filed by them has already been dismissed; while the
one filed by his clients seeks injunction against them. He argued
that, in such scenario, the learned Single Judge has committed
no error in having disallowed the appellants' plea for interdiction
of Ext.P10 - which the learned senior counsel reiterated is
nearly in furtherance of the earlier directions in Ext.P7
judgment.
4. We have examined Ext.P7 very intently; and as rightly
argued by the learned senior counsel, after voicing a doubt as to
why there should be parallel proceedings, the learned Bench
allowed the survey to continue; however, it clarifying that it shall
not be used for the purpose of the suit/suits between the parties.
5. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the
present writ petition, took specific note of the directives in
2026:KER:6344
WA NO. 2728 OF 2025
Ext.P7 and has also clarified that the survey or the measurement
- as the case may be - will be subject to any decision to be taken
in the suit/suits.
6. The apprehension voiced by Sri.Rajeev Koyickal -
learned counsel for the appellants, is that once the survey, as
permitted through Ext.P10, is completed, the party respondent
herein will immediately construct a compound wall; and he
contends that this would lead to a travesty since his client has
sought for the cancellation of the sale deed itself, based on
which the party respondent is staking claim qua the property.
7. We cannot find favour with the afore submissions of
Sri.Rajeev Koyickal because, when both Ext.P7 judgment of the
learned Division Bench and the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge have made it unambiguous that the
survey/demarcation to be done consequent to Ext.P10 shall not
be used by the parties in the suit/suits, and that it will be subject
to the decision of the same, it is for the parties to invoke their
remedies before the Trial Court, rather than seek orders against
Ext.P10.
8. In our firm view, Ext.P10 is merely a consequential
step in terms of the directions in Ext.P7 judgment; and cannot,
2026:KER:6344
WA NO. 2728 OF 2025
therefore, find the learned Single Judge to have committed
error in having delivered the impugned judgment.
9. To paraphrase, merely because the survey is done
pursuant to Ext.P10, it will not foreclose the right of either of the
parties against each other in the suit/suits that they have or may
have initiated before the learned Trial Court. This aspect has
been clearly and unequivocally clarified in Ext.P7 judgment; and
we, therefore, obtain no reason to intervene in this appeal.
This appeal is, resultantly, dismissed.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
stu
2026:KER:6344
WA NO. 2728 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 2728 OF 2025
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(A) True photocopy of the rough sketch of the
property.
Exhibit R1(B) True photocopy of the final order passed
by Sub Court Ernakulam in IA 3 of 2022
and IA 6 of 2022 in OS 15 of 2022 dated
07/04/2022
Exhibit R1(C) True photocopy of the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Addl. District Judge VIII
Ernakulam dated 07.10.2023 in CMA 33 of
Exhibit R1(D) True photocopy of the judgment passed by
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP (C)
19493 of 2022 and WP (C) 21368 of 2022
dated 18.07.2022
Exhibit R1(E) True photocopy of the application filed
by appellants dated 07.07.2023 before the
Thahsildar Kanayanur, Taluk Surveyor and
Village Officer Manakunnam Village
