IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37643 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMADUNNI, PAMBINEZHATH HOUSE, ERIYAD, KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. RABIYA, AGED 55 YEARS, D/O. ALI, RAYAMMAKKARU HOUSE, MADAVANA ERIYADU, KODUNGALLUR. 2. FATHIMA, AGED 53 YEARS, -DO- 3. JAINUDEEN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. ALI, -DO- 4. ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 49 YEARS, -DO- 5. ASMABI, AGED 47, D/O. ALI, -DO- 6. MUHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ALI, -DO- 7. NASEEMA, AGED 42, S/O. ALI, -DO- 8. MOHIYUDEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ALI, -DO- 9. HAJIRABI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ALI, -DO- 10. ALIKUNJU, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUNNI, KADAMBOTTU HOUSE, ERIYAD, KODUNGALLOOR. 11. KUNJUBEEVATHU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMADUNNI, PAMBINEZHATH HOUSE, ERIYAD, KODUNGALLOOR. 12. ALI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAMMU, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, ERIYAD, KODUNGALLOOR. 13. AYSHABI, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. KUNJUMUHAMMADUNNI, PAMBINEZHATH HOUSE, ERIYAD, KODUNGALLOOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 37643 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Kodungallur in EP 423/05 in OS 140/92 whereby she has directed delivery of schedule property with the help of the Taluk Surveyor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property is not identifiable and he has raised valid contentions especially in the light of a partition deed and therefore the decree should not be executed. Admittedly as per the decree passed by the court, the properties described as “GHIJK” having an extent of 425 Sq. links in 696/5, 75 Sq. links in 696/3 and 1.725 cents in 696/4 totaling an extent 2 cents and 225 Sq. links is the property sought to be evicted or recovered from the 2nd defendant, who is the present writ petitioner herein. The court has only directed delivery of the property with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor. It cannot be stated even before visiting the property that there is dispute regarding identification of the property. When the Taluk Surveyor goes to identify the property or locates the property, as ordered in the decree, and if it is found by him that the WPC NO 37643/07 2 property is not identifiable or not seen there, it is for him to report the matter. It is too premature at this stage to say anything regarding the non-entity of the property. Therefore I do not want to interfere at this stage with the order passed by the court below but needless to say, if there is any difficulty regarding the identification of the property, which is sought to be delivered, then certainly the Taluk Surveyor and the officer who is directed to deliver the property can report the matter to the court and the court can consider that factor and dispose it of in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 37643/07 3