IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3821 of 2008(E) ------------------------- OS.19/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- MUKRIVALAPPIL ASSAINAR, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS, CHERANTRA PARAMBIL HOUSE, POST, BADAGARA-3, REP. BY BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDURAHIMAN. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SMT.M.V.SAVEENA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. M.P.MAMMU HAJI, (DIED), S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY HAJI, MUSALYARAVITA PUTHIYAPURAYIL AGRICULTURIST, POST BADAGARA-3, AZHITHALA. 2. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.MAMMU HAJI, AGRICULTURIST, MUSALYARAVITA PUTHIYAPURAYIL POST, BADAGARA-3, AZHITHALA. 3. SAYINABA, W/O.M.P.MAMMU HAJI, (R1), MUSALYARAVITA PUTHIYAPURAYIL, SWASTHAM, BADAGARA – 3. 4.ASHRAF, MUSALIYARAVITA PUTHIYAPURAYIL, SWASTHAM, BADAGARA – 3. 5.GAFOOR, MUSALIYARAVITA PUTHIYAPURAYIL, SWASTHAM, BADAGARA – 3. 6. BROTHER NOUSHAD, MUSALIYARAVITA PUTHIYAPURAYIL, SWASTHAM, BADAGARA-3. 7. SAFARIYA, MUSALIYARAVITA PUTHIYAPURAYIL, SWASTHAM, BADAGARA-3. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 3821 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Munsiff, Vadakara in I.A.23/08 in O.S.19/01. The matter was remanded by the Subordinate Judge, to the Munsiff with a direction which I extract as follows. “The lower Court shall direct, in the event of application for the above purpose being filed by the plaintiff, the Advocate Commissioner to correctly ascertain the northern boundary of the plaintiff's property and southern boundary of the defendant's property with reference to the title deeds of the plaintiff and the defendant and then see whether there is any trespass by the defendants' in to the plaintiff's property.” Or in other words, the clear crystal direction given by the appellate judge is to fix the boundary separating the properties of the plaintiff and defendants by measuring the property with respect to the title deeds of the property. W.P.C 3821 OF 2008 -:2:- 2. Now, it is desirable to refer to the Commissioner's plan and report. The Commissioner in his report dated 12.12.07 in paragraph 2 had stated that the neighbours had pointed out the boundary and so the boundary has been fixed. It is totally against the direction of the appellate Court. The boundary itself is to be fixed in accordance with the title deeds of the parties and not on the oral representations made by the parties or by the neighbours. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the Munsiff is directed to specifically direct the Commissioner to identify the boundary as ordered by the learned Subordinate Judge with reference to the title deeds of the plaintiff and defendants in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-