Disposed

A.G.Cleetus v. Sarojini

Kerala HC15 Jan 2019OP(C)/97/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an original petition filed by a plaintiff in a recovery of possession suit. The petitioner challenged the rejection of objections regarding a Commissioner's report and plan by the lower court, with the higher court confirming the suit remains for trial.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was disposed of with observations that the underlying suit stands posted for trial.

A.G.Cleetus Vs Sarojini — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019/25TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

O.P.(C)No.97 of 2019

¶6

(IN THE MATTER OF O.S.NO.268/1996 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA)

¶7

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

A.G.CLEETUS, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, RESIDING IN ARASERUKADAVU, ZACHARIA WARD, ALLEPPEY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶11

1 SAROJINI, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. MANIYAN PILLAY, RESIDING IN CHIRAPARAMBU, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, BEACH WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 012.

¶12

2 MANIYAN PILLAY, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRAPARAMBU, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, BEACH WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 012.

¶13

3 M. HYDROSE (DIED) RESIDING AT SHAJIMANZIL, CIVIL LINE, ALAPPUZHA 688 012.

¶14

4 SUDHAMONY, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRAPARAMBU, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, BEACH WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 012.

¶15

O.P.(C)No.97 of 2019

¶16

¶17

5 ISHABEEVI, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. LATE HYDROSE, RESIDING AT SHAJI MANZIL, CIVIL LANE, ALAPPUZHA 688 012. BY ADVS. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O.P.(C)No.97 of 2019

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Aggrieved by the rejection of the objections regarding the Commissioner's report and plan, the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession, fixation of boundary and injunction is before this court.

¶23

2. According to the plaintiff, the defendants trespassed into the plaint schedule item No.1 property and reduced a portion thereof, which is scheduled as plaint item No.2, to their possession. The defendants on the other hand contended that the plaint No.2 is part of their property.

¶24

3. The Commissioner appointed in the

¶25

suit measured out the properties with the assistance of a Surveyor, prepared a plan and report. The plaintiff filed objections to the

¶26

O.P.(C)No.97 of 2019

¶27

¶28

Commissioner's report pointing out that the report and plan is not acceptable. Various challenges are raised against the

¶29

Commissioner's report and plan. The court below as per the impugned order rejected the objections. However, the learned Munsiff has made it clear that the plaintiff will have adequate opportunity at the time of trial to adduce evidence against the report and plan.

¶30

4. The suit presently stands posted for trial in the list. The suit is of the year, 1996. The trial in the suit is not to be stalled. As observed by the learned Munsiff in the impugned order, after the entire evidence is taken, the court below shall consider the acceptability and correctness of the Commissioner's report and plan. If the court finds that the report and plan needs to be remitted, then shall be open for the court below to do so, notwithstanding the order

¶31

O.P.(C)No.97 of 2019

¶32

¶33

dated 11.12.2018.

¶34

With the above observations the original

¶35

petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

O.P.(C)No.97 of 2019

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-122018 IN OBJECTION TO COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S NO. 268/96 DATED 11-12-2018 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ALAPUZHA EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN O.S NO. 268/96 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ALAPUZHA DATED 28-11-2012. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 3-7-2017 IN O.S NO. 268/96 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ALAPUZHA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 11-7-2017 IN O.S NO. 268/1996.

A.G.Cleetus v. Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.G.Cleetus v. Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew George, Vs the District Collector

Manju Vs Titto M

Vijayalakshmi Nair Vs Sree Gokulam Finance Co. (P) Ltd.

Aqueel Abdul Kareem Vs P.K.Hameed

Mini Sajan Varghese Vs Manacaud Suresh

Suresh Vs Suvarna Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd.