IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 35008 of 2008(P) -------------------------- OS.1752/2005 of II ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JOSE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.VAREED, MECHERY HOUSE, KIZHAKKOTTA, ANCHANGADI, THRISSUR DT. 2. KOCHUTHRESSIA, W/O.JOSE, MECHERY HOUSE, KIZHAKKOTTA, ANCHANGADI, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- REETHA ANTHONY, W/O.ANTHONY, CHEMMANDA HOUSE, KIZHAKKEKOTTA, THRISSUR DT. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ W.P(C).NO.35008 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 26th February 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.1752/2005 on the file of Munsiff court, Thrissur. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P2 order passed by Additional Munsiff in I.A.8008/2007, an application filed to set aside the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner. Ext.P1 is the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner. Case of the petitioners is that the total extent of the property belonging to him under sale deed 3164/92 and 2828/93 is 8¼ cents in survey No.731/2 and 732/1 of Chembukkavu village and as per Ext.P1 report and plan the extent shown by the Commissioner is only 7.910 cents and learned Munsiff should have set aside the report. 2. Ext.P1 report shows that the Commissioner found that though in sale deed obtained by the petitioners and in the anterior document of title viz. partition deed No.323/87 the property is WPC 35008/08 2 shown as in survey No.731/2 and 732/1, there is no such property and property is actually in survey No.731/1. Commissioner also reported that there is no physical boundary to enable the Commissioner to locate the said property and the properties were fixed in agreement with petitioners and respondent as that there shortage of extent. It is based on the extent fixed by the Commissioner which is less than the extent available in the documents of title of the the petitioners, the objection is raised. But the extent fixed by the Commissioner in respect of the property of respondent is also than the one shown in the partition deed. In such circumstances, it is a matter for the court to decide in the suit whether the identification and demarcation in the plan and report submitted by the Commissioner is to be accepted or not. I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P2 order. Writ petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.