IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 502 of 2010(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2358/2009 IN OS.321/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. BIJI POTHEN, S/O.K.M.BABY, KARINGADA ESTATE, KALLAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. JIJI POTHEN, S/O.K.M.BABY, KARINGADA ESTATE, KALLAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. AJI POTHEN, S/O.K.M.BABY, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENT: --------------- MINI JOSEPH, W/O.JOHN ALEX, RESIDING AT KARINGADA HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686101 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.502 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendants in O.S.No.321 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Hosdurg are the petitioners challenging Ext.P6, order refusing to remit the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Respondent filed the suit for prohibitory injunction to restrain petitioners trespassing into the suit property. Respondent applied for appointment of a commission. That application was resisted by petitioners contending that properties are not identified. Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P3, report after measuring property with the assistance of a Surveyor. That report was requested to be remitted as per Ext.P4, application which was dismissed as per Ext.P6, order. Learned counsel contends that even now boundaries of the properties are not properly identified and that property taken over by the Government as excess land has not been identified and hence the court below ought to have remitted the report as requested in Ext.P4. 2. It is seen from Ext.P3, report of the Advocate Commissioner who visited property 8 times with the Surveyor that the suit property was measured. As per the report of the Advocate O.P(C).No.502 of 2010 : 2 : Commissioner, claim of respondent/plaintiff is for plot marked as ABCDEFGHIJK. On its east is property belonging to petitioner No.3 as per document No.1364 of 1999. Petitioner No.3 had 14.82 acres altogether and as per the said document, a portion of the property according to the Advocate Commissioner is situated on the east of public road. One objection raised is that the said portion of the property was not measured but, learned Munsiff has observed that there was no request to identify the property and the request was only to mark the property. Commissioner also noticed that of the property belonging to petitioner No.3, he has sold 6.55 acres to Koshy Mathew as per document No.2074 of 2005. Commissioner also says that actual dispute is over ABCDMIJKA of which a portion is said to be sold by petitioner No.3 to Koshy Mathew. In Ext.P4, application petitioner claimed that it is necessary to identify the property taken over by the Government as excess land. Learned Munsiff has observed in Ext.P6, order that major portion of Ext.P4, application related to observations made by the Advocate Commissioner and if those observations are not correct it is open to the petitioner to adduce evidence regarding that. 3. I must bear in mind that this is a simple suit for injunction based on possession claimed by the respondent. A detailed enquiry into title is not admitted. If complicated issues regarding title is involved the parties have to go for a comprehensive suit on title. Now what is required to be decided is O.P(C).No.502 of 2010 : 3 : whether suit property was in the possession of the respondent on the date of suit. If according to the petitioners the suit property is not properly identified, they can adduce evidence in that line and that does not go to the disadvantage of petitioners. Having gone through the records, Ext.P4, application and Ext.P6, order and hearing learned counsel I am not satisfied that there is any gross injustice arising from Ext.P6, order which is required to be corrected by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. There is no reason to interfere with Ext.P6, order. This petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-