IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 267 of 2011(O) ------------------------ I.A.8618/2010 IN OS.109/1986 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- C.A.VINCENT, S/O.JOSEPH CHELLAYYAN NADAR, CHERUPUSHPA VILASOM, MULLILAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- A.YESUDAS, S/O.APPAS, CHEMMANNUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELLARADA, KUNNATHUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 504. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- O.P.(Civil) No.267 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, the plaintiff in the suit, is aggrieved by the order dated 20th December, 2010 in I.A.No.8618 of 2010 in O.S.No.109 of 1986 on the file of the court of the Principal Munsiff of Neyyattinkara. The suit is for declaration of title, putting up boundaries and consequential injunction. It is stated that the suit was remanded by the appellate court to the trial court for fresh disposal within a period of six months. On the application filed by the petitioner, a Commissioner was appointed to measure the property with the assistance of the surveyor. The respondent/defendant filed I.A.No.8618 of 2010 to direct the Commissioner to note the details mentioned in the application as well. Objections were raised by the petitioner. The court below allowed the request made by O.P.(Civil) No.267 of 2011 2 the respondent/defendant. 2. The objection raised by the petitioner was that the respondent wanted the Commissioner to locate the property belonging to one Mani and others. Mani is not a party to the suit. Mani had put forward a claim earlier in another suit and his claim was rejected holding that he has no title or possession over the property claimed by him. Therefore, it is not necessary in the present suit to locate the property of Mani. This contention was considered by the court below and it was held that considering the statements of both sides, location of the properties as sought for by the respondent is highly necessary for deciding the issues involved in the case. While holding so, the court below held that a portion of survey No.492/8 belongs to Mani also. The petitioner is highly aggrieved by this statement, since according to the petitioner, Mani has no property at all in that place. 3. The court below has only directed the Commissioner to measure the property and to note the details O.P.(Civil) No.267 of 2011 3 mentioned in the application filed by the respondent. At this stage, it is not necessary to conclusively decide whether the plaintiff has title or the defendant has title. Necessarily the question whether Mani has title to the property is also alien to the disposal of the application for commission. The mention in the order that Mani is also holding a portion of the property in survey No.492/8 could be treated as a contention raised by one party. Measurement of the property for the purpose of noting the details mentioned by the respondent in his application could be made and the rights of the parties will be decided by the court only after taking evidence. The order impugned does not call for any interference and accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl