Shaji v. Babu
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed an original petition challenging a Munsiff Court order that refused a survey commission in a suit for injunction. The Court held the suit did not seek boundary fixation and thus the refusal was without illegality or infirmity.
What did the court decide?
The original petition was dismissed; the impugned order of the learned Munsiff Court stands affirmed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 14TH POUSHA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 2271 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 2/2023 IN OS 128/2017 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF NO. 1:
SHAJI AGED 70 YEARS S/O AYYAPPAN KUNJI, NEELIMATHARA HOUSE, MALYANKARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM, PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683516
BY ADVS. P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN K.R.PRATHISH S.RENJITH S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD) JOEL CHALAMANA KRISHNA DAS
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS NO. 1 TO 3 & PLAINTIFF NO. 2:
1 BABU AGED 63 YEARS S/O VELAYUDHAN, KOZHIKKAL HOUSE, MALYANKARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM, PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683516
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court under Article 227 can interfere with a subordinate court order dismissing an application for survey commission in a suit for injunction simpliciter.
Whether a general denial regarding property boundaries in the written statement warrants the issuance of a survey commission.
Whether the Munsiff Court order refusing a survey commission was illegal, infirm, or perverse.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
SHAJI
- respondent
BABU
- respondent
SHEELA
- respondent
BIBIN
- respondent
SINOJ
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court