IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 52 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- OS.NO.224/1995 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER --------------------- PHILBERT K.G., S/O. ROSAKUTTY, KALATHIL HOUSE, MANJALY, MANNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTIRCT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. PADMAVATHY AMMA, W/O. LATE SATHYANATHAN NAIR, CONCERT O' CASTLE, KADAVANTARA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE - 682 020. 2. SUNIL, S/O. LATE SATHYANATHAN NAIR, CONCERT O' CASTLE, KADAVANTARA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE - 682 020. 3. LAKSHMI, D/O. LATE SATHYANATHAN NAIR, CONCERT O' CASTLE, KADAVANTARA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE - 682 020. 4. THE TALUK SURVEYOR (JOINT COMMISSIONER), PARAVUR TALUK, N.PARAVUR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR) SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.52/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.224/95 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAVUR. P2 COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT FILED BY THE COMMISSIONER DATED 8/6/2007. P3 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 01/4/09 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER P4 COPY OF THE PATTA 17/71 NO.5725 DATED 27/12/1971. P5 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 30/6/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.52 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayer in this original petition filed at the instance of plaintiff in O.S.No.224 of 1995 of the Court of learned Munsiff, North Paravur is to direct an enquiry to be made into the non availability of survey records in the survey department and to direct the learned Munsiff to defer trial of O.S.No.224 of 1995. 2. The suit as amended is for declaration of title and recovery of possession of a portion of the suit property on the strength of allegation that respondent trespassed into that portion. The Advocate Commissioner submitted report that himself and the Taluk Surveyor could not locate properties of petitioner. Advocate Commissioner wanted a plan from the Directorate of survey, Thiruvananthapuram. In the light of that report, learned Munsiff directed the said authority to produce the relevant sketches. The Assistant Director of survey produced certified copy of the sketch of survey 431/1,2 and 3A of Ayiroor village and reported that the sketch of survey 431/3A of Ayiroor village (now Karumallur village) and the sketch sought in respect of the property in Puthenvelikkara village are not available. O.P(C).No.52 of 2011 -: 2 :- Learned Munsiff appointed a new Advocate Commissioner with a direction to carry out work on the basis of the sketch produced by the Assistant Director. That Advocate Commissioner filed interim report stating that the sub division sketches are not available in the two village offices mentioned above and hence no measurement could be effected. It is in view of that, petitioner filed this original petition seeking reliefs as above stated. 3. A statement has been filed by the Government Pleader on behalf of the 4th respondent that the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records has informed that the sub division sketch of the properties comprised in Sy.No.431/3A, 198/3, 20/1B-2-3-4 in Puthenvelikkara village are not available in that office and that properties covered by the said survey numbers could be measured only on the basis of the shape of litho sketch, possession and extent of properties shown in the title deeds. 4. In the light of the above statement, learned counsel for petitioner sought a direction to the learned Munsiff to issue direction to the Advocate Commissioner to measure the properties accordingly. 5. In view of the statement filed by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 4th respondent, a further O.P(C).No.52 of 2011 -: 3 :- direction from this Court for production of sketch is not required. But, it is open to the learned Munsiff to issue necessary direction to the Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor for measurement of the properties in the light of the statement made by the 4th respondent and as circumstances warranted. With the above observations this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-