This original petition challenging the Tribunal's dismissal of an application to appoint a Commissioner was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the construction of a building by the petitioner is irrelevant to determine genuineness of the registered document and a Commission Report is not necessary.
Null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937
OP(C).No. 2 of 2016 (O) -----------------------AGAINST O.S NO.100/2012 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
DEVAYANI AGED 61 YEARS W/O. SUBRAMANIYAN, KALASIYIL HOUSE ESWARAMANGALAM DESOM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD
BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
RESPONDENT(S):
1. SAROJINI D/O. (LATE) AMMUALUAMMA, KALASIYIL HOUSE ESWARAMANGALAM DESOM SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM OTTAPALAM
2. HARIDASAN S/O.(LATE)AMMUALUAMMA, KALASIYIL HOUSE ESWARAMANGALAM DESOM SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM OTTAPALAM
3. KANCHANA, AGED 47 YEARS W/O.(LATE) VASU, KALASIYIL HOUSE, ESWARAMANGALAM DESOM SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM OTTAPALAM
4. AJAYAKUMAR S/O.(LATE) KANCHAN, KALASIYIL HOUSE ESWARAMANGALAM DESOM SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM OTTAPALAM
5. PRINCE(MINOR) S/O. (LATE) KANCHAN,, AGED 14 YEARS AMMUALUAMMA, KALASIYIL HOUSE, ESWARAMANGALAM DESOM SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM OTTAPALAM REPRESENTED BY 3RD RSPONDENT MOTHER
6. SUBRAMANIANA, S/O. (LATE) AMMALUAMMA, KALASIYIL HOUSE ESWARAMANGALAM DESOM SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM OTTAPALAM
7. SUSEELA, AGED 48 YEARS W/O. (LATE) RAMNAKUTTY, KALASIYIL HOUSE ESWARAMANGALAM DESOM SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM OTTAPALAM
8. SUREKHA, AGED 27 YEARS D/O. SUSHEELA, KALASIYIL HOUSE, ESWARAMANGALAM DESOM SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM OTTAPALAM
9. SURESHNA, AGED 23 YEARS D/O. SUSHEELA, KALASIYIL HOUSE, ESWARAMANGALAM DESOM SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM OTTAPALAM
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 2 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION IN I.A 1269/2015 IN O.S 100/2012 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08-10-2015 IN I.A 1269/2015 IN O.S 100/2012
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
=======================
O.P(C)No.2 of 2016
============================ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.100/2012 of Sub Court,
Ottapalam. The suit is for declaration that the preliminary decree passed in O.S No.524/1997 and the subsequent proceedings are not binding on the plaint schedule property, which belongs to the petitioner. There is also a prayer for declaration of her title to the property and a consequential prohibitory injunction. She filed Ext.P1 application to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain whether a building exists in the property. This has been dismissed by the trial court by Ext.P3 order. This is challenged.
O.P.(C) No.2/2016
2
the registered document is genuine or not. If it is genuine, the petitioner will be entitled to a declaration, otherwise not. Construction of a building on the land by the petitioner is irrelevant. If the petitioner wants to prove her possession of the property by proving that she has constructed a building on it, she can produce copy of the Assessment Register maintained by the Local Authority and by producing building tax receipts in her name. A Commission Report is not necessary to determine the issues involved in the case. The learned Sub Judge rightly dismissed the application.
In the result, this original petition is dismissed. If the learned Sub Judge feels at a later stage that a Commission Report will help to decide the issues, there is no prohibition for him to depute a Commissioner for the same purpose.
Sd/K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE
vdv/04/01/16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a report of the Commissioner is necessary to decide the issues in the case.
DEVAYANI
SAROJINI
HARIDASAN
KANCHANA
AJAYAKUMAR
PRINCE
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
