Dismissed

Chandrikamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2024OP(C)/1107/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Additional plaintiffs in a suit challenged the Munsiff's dismissal of their application to remit the Advocate Commissioner's Report for failure to measure plaint A schedule item no.3. The High Court found the commission application never sought that measurement and plaintiffs had limited their claim over item no.3 to B schedule via amendment, so no illegality was shown.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chandrikamma Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 1107 OF 2022

¶6

ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2022 I.A. NO.15/2022 IN OS NO.26 OF

¶7

2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 4:

¶9

1CHANDRIKAMMA
AGED 69 YEARS
D/O CHELLAMMA AND W/O GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VIPANCHIKA,
THOTTAM, MANAKKAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
695009
2MURUKESHAN
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O CHELLAMMA AND RAGHAVAN PILLAI, BHASKARA BHAVANAM,
KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY
TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690533
3RAMESHAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O CHELLAMMA AND RAGHAVAN PILLAI, THACHAYIL, KAPPIL
MEKKUMURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690533
BY ADVS.
V.N.SANKARJEE
V.N.MADHUSUDANAN
R.UDAYA JYOTHI
M.SUSEELA
M.M.VINOD
KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN
VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K.
C.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR
NITHEESH.M

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, CIVIL
STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688001
2THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
RE-SURVEY, RE-SURVEY OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689121
3THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT
RE-SURVEY, RE-SURVEY OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688013

¶12

O.P.(C.) No.1107 of 2022

¶13

¶14

4 THE TAHSILDAR KARTHIKAPPLLY TALUK OFFICE, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690514

¶15

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690533 BY ADV ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE

¶17

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P.(C.) No.1107 of 2022

¶19

¶20

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶21

O.P.(C.) No.1107 of 2022

¶22

Dated this the 04^th day of March, 2024

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This Original Petition is preferred by additional plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the suit O.S. No.26/2016 pending before the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P17 order of the learned Munsiff, which dismissed the application to remit the Commissioner’s Report.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶26

and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel appearing

¶28

for the respective parties, this Court notice that the grievance espoused by the petitioners is that plaint A schedule item no.3 property was not measured and

¶29

O.P.(C.) No.1107 of 2022

¶30

identified by the Advocate Commissioner, aided by Surveyor. Ext.P13 application for remitting the Commissioner’s Report is preferred after the entire evidence in the trial was over, including that of the Commissioner and the Surveyor. This is one reason found by the learned Munsiff to dismiss Ext.P13. Ext.P9 application for issuance of Commission does not specifically ask for measurement of plaint A schedule item no.3 property. The first point sought to be ascertained is to measure out plaint schedule item nos.1 and 2 properties and to prepare a survey plan in respect of the same, wherein measurement of plaint schedule item no.3 property is conspicuously not sought for. Yet another aspect which this Court notice is with respect to Ext.P12 objection, wherein also, there is no specific contention taken with respect to absence of measurement of plaint schedule item no.3 property. The third reason, this Court finds for

¶31

¶32

O.P.(C.) No.1107 of 2022

¶33

confirming Ext.P17 order is that plaintiffs have limited their claim over item no.3 of the plaint schedule, by filing an amendment application, so as to incorporate relief for adverse possession, wherein the rights claimed over plaint schedule item no.3 property has been limited to a property which has been specifically described as B schedule of the plaint. In other words, the rights of the plaintiffs have been more specifically described in plaint B schedule property. Therefore, the significance, as also, the necessity to measure out the plaint schedule item no.3 property has been lost.

¶34

For the afore reasons, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity with respect to Ext.P17 order of the learned Munsiff. This Court also notice that by virtue of Ext.P18, there is a direction to expedite the trial of the suit, inasmuch as the Village Office is being constructed in the schedule premises, which construction is stalled because of the interim order

¶35

O.P.(C.) No.1107 of 2022

¶36

¶37

passed in this Original Petition.

¶38

Accordingly, Ext.P17 is confirmed and this Original

¶39

Petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN

JUDGE

SKP/04-03

O.P.(C.) No.1107 of 2022

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1107/2022

¶47

`PETITIONERS’ EXHI` `EXHIBIT P-1`	`BITS:` `TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 12.1.2016 (AS` `AMENDED) IN O.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF'S` `COURT, KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED NIL IN` `O.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,` `KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT` `DATED 22.3.2022 IN O.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE` `MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.6.2016 IN I.A.` `NO. 156/2016 IN O.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE` `MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.9.2016 IN I.A.` `NO. 156/2016 IN O.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE` `MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED` `15.3.2016 IN I.A. NO. 157/2016 IN O.S. NO.` `26/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED` `25.8.2016 IN I.A. NO. 2119/2016 IN O.S. NO.` `26/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED` `10.1.2017 IN I.A. NO. 3573/2016 IN O.S. NO.` `26/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION I.A.` `NO. 91/2019 DATED 16.1.2019 IN O.S. NO. 26/2016` `OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DATED` `25.10.2021 TOGETHER WITH SURVEY PLAN AND REPORT` `IN I.A. NO. 91/2019 IN O.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE` `MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED` `14.3.2022 TOGETHER WITH THREE SURVEY PLANS IN` `O.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,` `KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 22.3.2022` `AGAINST EXHIBIT P11 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN` `O.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,` `KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT P-13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AS I.A. NO. 15/2022`
	`DATED 6.6.2022 IN O.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE` `MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM`

¶48

O.P.(C.) No.1107 of 2022

¶49

¶50

`EXHIBIT`	`P-14` `TRUE`	`COPY OF THE`	`OBJE`	`CTION DATED 13.6.2022 IN`
	`I.A.` `MUNS`	`NO. 15/2022` `IFF'S COURT,`	`IN O` `KAYAMK`	`.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE` `ULAM`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-15` `TRUE` `VIJA` `OF T`	`COPY OF D` `YAN NAIR (SUR` `HE MUNSIFF'S`	`EPOSIT` `VEYOR)` `COURT,`	`ION DATED 23.5.2022 OF` `PW5 IN O.S. NO. 26/2016` `KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-16` `TRUE` `AJIT` `NO.`	`COPY OF DEPO` `H KUMAR (ADV` `26/2016 OF TH`	`SITIO` `OCATE` `E MUNS`	`N DATED 3.6.2022 OF K.G.` `COMMISSION) PW6 IN O.S.` `IFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM`
`EXHIBIT`	`P-17` `CERT`	`IFIED COPY OF`	`THE`	`ORDER DATED 18.6.2022 IN`
	`I.A.` `MUNS`	`NO. 15/2022` `IFF'S COURT,`	`IN O` `KAYAMK`	`.S. NO. 26/2016 OF THE` `ULAM`
`EXHIBIT` `RESPOND`	`P-18` `TRUE` `(C)` `ENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL`	`COPY OF THE` `NO. 1336/2021`	`ORDER` `OF TH`	`DATED 11.2.2022 IN O.P.` `IS HONOURABLE COURT`

¶51

TRUE COPY

¶52

P.A. TO JUDGE

Chandrikamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chandrikamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ponnore Enterprise LLP Represented by Its Poa Mr.Unaise .T Vs Crown Polymers Represented by Its Proprietor Mr.Sailesh Kumar

Jipsa.M Vs Gikku v.George

M/S. Christuraj Hospital Vs Jobin K Joseph

State of Kerala Vs Chellamma

1. v.M.Easokutty Vs 1. Eliyamma Varghese

Indira Vs Raman Nair