IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4295 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------- (OS.897/1996 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- P.C.MATHEW, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.MATHAN CHERIAN, PUTHUMANA HOUSE MALAMKARAN MANARCAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS, SMT.RUBY K.JOSE. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SHAJI MATHEW, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.MATHAN CHERIAN, PUTHUMANA HOUSE MALAMKARAN MANARCAD, KOTTAYAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.4295 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed against the order of the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam in I.A.No.674/2007 in O.S.No.897/1996 whereby the court has negatived the prayer for serving interrogatories to the 3rd defendant in the case. It has to be noted that the suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for a consequential injunction. In a case of this nature, what is to be proved is the entitlement of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and it is a well settled proposition of law that lacuna or weakness in a defence case will not entitle the plaintiff to get a decree on the strength of title. The questions referred to are only with respect to the title of the defendant. Not only that it is an indirect way of fishing out evidence which also the court cannot entertain. Therefore I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below. Therefore writ petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- CRPs 1918 & 1919/2003 -:2:-