IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1343 of 2009(I) ------------------------- OS.530/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- PAUL, AGED 67,S/O.KANICHAI ANTONY, VYNTHALA DESOM, KALLUR VADAKUMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT: --------------- PAULSON, S/O KANICHAI KOCHAPPU, VYNTHALA DESOM, KALLUR VADAKUMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. MR.C.P.SAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).1343/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.530/07 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY DT. 15.12.2007. EXT.P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN O.S.530/07 DT. 11.4.2008. EXT.P3:- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND PLAN SUBMITTED IN EXT.P1 SUIT DT.1.1.2008. EXT.P4:- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DT.11.6.08 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. EXT.P5:- A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER I.A.1823/08 IN O.S.530/07 DT. 3.10.2008 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. EXT.P6:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.1823/08 IN O.S.530/07 DT.17.12.2008 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL Okb - TRUE COPY - P.A. TO JUDGE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 1343 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in O.S.530 of 2007 on the file of Munsiff Court, Chalakudy filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Munsiff in I.A.1823 of 2008. That application was filed by the respondent/defendant, who in the written statement had raised a counter claim. The application was for appointment of a commission to identify the property and to prepare a plan. Learned Munsiff allowed that application and appointed a commission finding that in the counter claim a decree for fixation of boundary is sought. The order is challenged by the petitioner contending that respondent/defendant did not produce the entire documents including the alienations made and therefore with reference to the partition deed alone, the boundary cannot be fixed. It is also contended that when there is already a fixed boundary, there is no necessity to fix the boundary by a decree and therefore the claim for fixation of WP(C).1343/2009 2 boundary is not sustainable. 2. The question whether there exists a boundary, is also a matter which could be noted by the commissioner. If the respondent is to get his property identified so as to fix the boundary, it is upto him to produce the necessary title deeds and get the property identified. If, with reference to the documents produced, the commissioner cannot properly identify the property, such a report alone could be submitted. I find no reason to interfere with the order. Petitioner is also permitted to file a work memo, if so advised. If any work memo is filed, Munsiff to direct the commissioner to note the particulars mentioned in the said work memo also. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb