IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 RSA.No. 620 of 2010() --------------------- AS.305/2007 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM OS.170/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------ KESAVAN,S/O.KUTTAN,RESIDING AT ARAYESSERIL HOUSE,PADINJATTINCHERRY PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.NANDANAN SRI.P.N.ANOOP RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. AJAYAKUMAR,S/O.MADHAVAN, NOW RESIDING AT KOCHUPARAMBIL FROM KALATHIPARAMBIL, PADINJATTINCHERRY PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. KUNJAMMA,W/O.RAGHAVAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL FROM KALATHIPARAMBIL, PADINJATTINCHERRY PADINJAREMURI, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 3. MANIYAN,S/O.RAGHAVAN,KOCHUPARAMBIL FROM KALATHIPARAMBIL,PADINJATTINCHERRY PAPDINJAREMURI,NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RSA.No. 620 of 2010 ORDER IN I.A.NO.1331/2010 IN R.S.A.NO.620/2010 Closed Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN 15.11.2010 //True Copy// P.A to Judge S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A No.620 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November 2010 JUDGMENT Concurrent decision in a suit for fixation of boundaries, rendered by the two courts below, non-suiting the plaintiff, is challenged in this appeal. The plaintiff alleged that the suit properties were obtained by him under a partition deed, in which, the predecessor of the defendants was also a party. Though partition was effected among the sharers, boundaries of the properties allotted were not fixed and, later, it gave rise to disputes between the sharers, and so much so, the suit has been necessitated, according to the plaintiff. Resisting the suit claim, the defendants contended that the properties are having well defined boundaries and the suit claim for fixation of boundaries has no merit. In the light of the contention taken by the defendants as above, the plaintiff had taken steps for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, who after conducting local inspection and measurement, filed a report and plan. The report and plan prepared by the Commissioner (Ext.C1 and C1(a)) indicated that there were well demarcated boundaries over the properties as contended by the defendants. No oral evidence was R.S.A No.620 OF 2010 2 adduced by the parties in the suit, and in fact, no objection was also raised by the plaintiff to the report and plan. In that backdrop, after appreciating the materials tendered in the case, the trial court dismissed the suit, which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. Hence, this appeal. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant. A fresh opportunity to file objections to the report and to establish what are stated thereunder are not true of facts, is canvassed by the counsel for remission of the case after setting aside the decree and judgment rendered in the case. Perusing the judgments of the trial court and also the lower appellate court, I find that the request of the counsel, having regard to the interdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be entertained by this court. Nothing has been brought out to impeach the correctness of the findings rendered by the courts below that the suit properties have well defined physical boundaries, fences etc., and there was no need for fixation of boundaries as canvassed by the plaintiff. When that be the case, the appeal does not have any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE dmb