Disposed

Biji Pothen v. Mini Joseph

Kerala HC6 Mar 2018OP(C)/564/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 sought to direct the trial court to include the examination of petitioners' title deeds in the Advocate Commission's local inspection to identify disputed property. The High Court ordered the Advocate Commission to consider the title deeds and rescheduled the local inspection.

What did the court decide?

Order directed Advocate Commission to look into petitioners' title deeds and rescheduled local inspection to effectuate orders.

Biji Pothen Vs Mini Joseph — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶4

OP(C).No. 564 of 2018

¶5

OS 107/2011 OF SUB COURT, HOSDRUG

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 BIJI POTHEN, S/O.LATE K.M BABY @ POTHEN, AGED 44 YEARS, KARINGADA HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶8

2 JIJI POTHEN, S/O. LATE K.M BABY @ POTHEN, AGED 42 YEARS, KARINGADA HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶9

3 AJI POTHEN S/O. LATE K.M BABY @ POTHEN, AGED 38 YEARS, KARINGADA HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

MINI JOSEPH, W/O. JOHN ALEX, AGED 47 YEARS, KARINGADA HOUSE, MULAMALA ESTATE, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE AND POST, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN 685 542

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

PBS

¶15

OP(C).No. 564 of 2018 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF I.A 126 OF 2017 IN O.S NO 107 OD 2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, HOSDURG EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN I.A 126 OF 2017 IN O.S NO 107 OF 2011 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-7-2017 IN I.A 126 OF 2017 IN O.S NO 107 OF 2011 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, HOSDURG EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 2-2-2017 EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 2-2-2017 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NIL

¶19

/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE

¶20

PBS 6/3/2018

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶22

¶23

O.P.(C) No.564 of 2018

¶24

----------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The prayer in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions contained in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows :

¶27

“(i) to modify Exhibit-P3 order of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg, in I.A.No.126 of 2017 in O.S.No.107 of 2011 by incorporating the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in Exhibit-P1 I.A.”

¶28

Heard Sri.V.N.Ramesan Nambisan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondent/plaintiff will stand dispensed with.

¶29

The petitioners 1 to 3 in Exhibit-P1 I.A. 126 of 2017 in O.S.No.107 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg. The petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit filed by the respondent herein. Defendant No.4 in the said suit has not been made a party herein. The suit is originally filed for injunction and is later amended by incorporating the relief for recovery of possession also. Exhibit-P1 petition was filed by the petitioners praying to remit back Exhibit-P4 and P4(a) commission report and plan and it was partly allowed by the court below as per Exhibit-P3 order dated 6.7.2017 rendered on I.A.No.126 of 2017 in the said O.S. The limited prayer

¶30

: :2::

¶31

O.P.(C) No.564/18

¶32

made by the petitioner is to remit the matter to the Advocate Commission, so that the defendants' property could be identified on the basis of the title deeds that may be made available by the petitioners herein (defendants). This Court was now apprised by the trial court as per the report dated 2.3.2018 that the matter in respect of the local inspection to be conducted by the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to Exhibit-P3 order has been delayed and the direction has been issued now to the Advocate Commissioner to measure the property on 10.3.2018 even if the parties are not present at the site and that the case is posted for report on 14.3.2018.

¶33

Having regard to the fact that the Advocate Commission has not yet commenced its site inspection pursuant to Exhibit-P3 order, it is ordered that the Advocate Commission would also look into the title deeds of the petitioners/defendants for identifying their property. The local inspection of the Advocate Commission may be suitably rescheduled by the trial court, so as to effectuate the present orders also. The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment before the trial court for necessary information.

¶34

With these observations, the Original Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶35

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶36

csl

Biji Pothen v. Mini Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biji Pothen v. Mini Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Azeez T.A. Vs Saidalavi K.

Moideen Vs the Land Tribunal

St. Georges Forane Church Vs M/S. Edumart

Sulfath Beevi Vs Rajeena Beegam

M/S. Afeef Cashew Co. Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.

A.a.George Vs Jayakrishnan