IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 37939 of 2007(D) -------------------------- OS.214/2002 of MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... PETITIONERS: PLAINTIFFS NO.1,2 AND 4 IN OS 214/2002: --------------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.CHANDRAMATHI, W/O. LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, MADAPURAKKAL HOUSE, MANATHANA AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.P.THILAKARAJAN, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, MADAPURAKKAL HOUSE, MANATHANA AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. P.P.SURESH BABU, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, AGED 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, MADAPURAKKAL HOUSE, MANATHANA AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS: ------------------------ 1. P.P.ABRAHAM ALIAS ABI, S/O.PHILIPOSE, BUSINESS, PARAYIL HOUSE, KELAKAM, P.O.ADAKKATHODE, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 2. PARAYIL JOSE, S/O.PARAYIL UNNI, KOTTIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. M.C.THOMAS MANHOORAN, S/O.JACOB MANHOORAN, MANHOORAN HOUSE, VARAYAL, P.O.THALAPPUZHA, WYNAD DISTRICT. 4. KOCHUVEETTIL BIJUMON K.SKARIA, KOCHUVEEDU, KOCHUVEEDU, KOTTIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR) SRI.P.V.PAULSON SRI.V.AJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO 37939/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PLAINT IN OS 214/02 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA EXT.P2. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION IN OS 214/02 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 7.12.07 IN IA 2083 OF 2007 IN OS 214/02 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 26743 OF 2007 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.R1(a). COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN IA 1973/07 IN OS 223/07 EXT.R1(b). COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OS 214 OF 2002. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 37939 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property with the assistance of experts in the archaeological department so as to enable the Commissioner to find out the remnants of Devasthanam. The court below has appointed a Commissioner for inspecting the property. 2. The contention of the writ petitioners is that it is a Devasthanam property and there are remnants of an old Temple under the property, which if excavated and examined by the archaeological department would show that there had been a Temple in existence, which may be an important factor for a proper decision in the case. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that it is not necessary because already there are two commissioner's report. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the commissioners are only able to do the examination superficially and it requires expertisation as well as some excavation to find out the same. WPC NO 37939/07 2 3. Therefore, I permit the prayer of the petitioners to direct the commissioner to inspect the property with the assistance of experts in the archaeological department to help the commissioner at the time of inspection of the property and also to find out whether there are any remnants of the Temple under the earth. I make it clear that in the guise of the same, the writ petitioners shall not be permitted to excavate the entire property which will result in damages to the other side. The court may impress upon the archaeological department about the urgency of the matter and try to get a report, as expeditiously as possible. Till such time a report is received and the parties are directed to file objections, the time limit fixed by me is extended by another four months. Needless to say, the expenses for the inspection by the archaeological department has to be met by the writ petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 37939/07 3 WPC NO 37939/07 4 WPC NO 37939/07 5