IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 233 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NARAYANANKUTTY GUPTHAN, S/O.POOKKATTIL, VADAKKEKARA, KUNCHU MANNADIYAR, KATTUKULAM AMSOM, MANGALAMKUNNU DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MALATHI AMMA, MELEPARAMBATTIL KANHIRAMPARE KATTUKULAM AMSOM, MANAGALAMKUNNU DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. CHILDREN OF 1ST RESPONDENT, PIN – 679 514. 2. JANAKI AMMA, MELEPARAMBATTIL KANHIRAMPARE KATTUKULAM P.O, AMSOM, MANAGALAMKUNNU DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN – 679 514. 3. ACHUTHANKUTTI NAIR, MELEPARAMBATTIL KANHIRAMPARE KATTUKULAM P.O, AMSOM, MANAGALAMKUNNU DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN – 679 514. 4. BHASKARAN NAIR, MELEPARAMBATTIL KANHIRAMPARE KATTUKULAM P.O, AMSOM, MANAGALAMKUNNU DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN – 679 514. 5. INDIRA, MELEPARAMBATTIL KANHIRAMPARE KATTUKULAM P.O, AMSOM, MANAGALAMKUNNU DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK – 679 514. 6. RAJAN, MELEPARAMBATTIL KANHIRAMPARE KATTUKULAM P.O, AMSOM, MANAGALAMKUNNU DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK PIN – 679 514. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.233 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18 th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Ottappalam filed I.A.No.1199 of 2009 for setting aside the Commissioner's report and plan and to appoint another Commissioner. The court below dismissed the application by the order impugned in this Original Petition. 2. The plaintiff claimed title to the property in old survey Nos.26/1 and 26/2 of Sreekrishnapuram village. The property of the defendants lies on the northern side of the plaint schedule property. According to the defendants, their property is in Survey No.25/5. The court below noticed that the plaintiff has no case that he is having any property in Survey No.25/5. Likewise the defendants have no case that their property is O.P(C).No.233 OF 2011 2 included in Survey No.26/1. 3. The court below stated in the order impugned that going by the pleadings, the question to be resolved is, in which Survey Number the disputed portion of the property is situated. A Commissioner was appointed and later that report was remitted for inspection of the property with reference to survey records. A Private Surveyor assisted the Commissioner. Now the petitioner wants the property to be measured on the basis of resurvey with the help of the Taluk Surveyor. No case is projected in the pleadings on the basis of resurvey. The court below held that all the necessary facts have been reported by the Commissioner and that no grounds are made out to set aside the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner. 4. All the contentions of the parties have been considered by the court below in great detail and O.P(C).No.233 OF 2011 3 it was held that it is not necessary to have an inspection of the property in the manner suggested by the petitioner. No grounds are made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms