IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2649 of 2011() ------------------------ OS.835/1998 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER (S): ------------------------------ SUMATHI SREEKUMARI,TC-20/23, KARAMANA,CHANGAZHASSERI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. B.R. VALSALA,W/O. VIVEKANDAN, FROM VEELUTHUNDUVILA VEEDU,ARUMANOOR,THIRUPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA,NOW RESIDING AT ANANDA BHAVAN, ARUMANOOR,POOVAR NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695126. 2. SUMATHI SANTHA,TC-20/23,KARAMANA, CHANGAZHASSERI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002. 3. R.GOPU,TC-20/23,KARAMANA, CHANGAZHASSERI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002. 4. SUMATHI KOMALAM,TC-20/23,KARAMANA, CHANGAZHASSERI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002 5. SUMATHI MANGALAM,TC-20/23,KARAMANA, CHANGAZHASSERI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002. 6. SUMATHI RAJESWARI,TC-20/23,KARAMANA, CHANGAZHASSERI VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695002. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) NO.2649/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1-A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.835/1998 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF AMENDMENT PETITION AND THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN OS 835/1998 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 1, 2 AND 4 TO 8 IN OS NO.835/1998 EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN IN OS NO.167/2007 EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.8473/1999 IN OS NO.835/1998 EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 19.9.2008 EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF IA NO.7995/2010 IN OS 835/1998 EXT.P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN IS NO.7995/2010 IN OS 835/1998 EXT.P9 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.01.2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN IA NO.7995/2010 IN OS NO.835/1998 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2649 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 8th defendant in O.S.No.835 of 1998 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a suit filed by the first respondent for recovery of possession of plaint A and B schedules, prohibitory injunction and other reliefs against petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 who are defendants 2 and 4 to 7 (first defendant expired, it is submitted). According to petitioner, plaint A schedule item No.1 is 3 cents and a building comprised in Sy. No.2012 and/or 2013 (as the case may be) and item No.2 is 7.5 cents comprised in Sy No.2013. Plaint B schedule is described as the building in plaint A schedule. In Ext.P3, written statement petitioner contended that Kumaran Nadar Raman Nadar, predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and other defendants got leasehold right over 21 cents in Sy. No.2012 and building and that right devolved on petitioner and other defendants. It is also contended that of the said 21 cents, petitioner and other defendants sold 9 cents and what remained with petitioner and others is 12 cents which lies within well O.P(C) No.2649 of 2011 -: 2 :- demarcated boundaries (compound wall). Petitioner and other defendants set up a plea of tenancy over the said property. Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P6, report and plan where it is stated that plaint A schedule item No.1 is comprised in Sy. No.2012, item No.2 is comprised in Sy. No.2013 and a portion of the building was found falling in Sy.No.2013 as well. Thereon petitioner filed application (I.A. No.7995 of 2010) for amendment of the written statement to raise a plea that over any portion of the property falling in Sy. No.2013 in the possession of petitioner and other defendants they have perfected title by adverse possession and limitation. That plea was not accepted by the learned Munsiff holding that the said plea runs counter to the plea originally stated in the written statement. That order is under challenge. It is contended by learned counsel that the case is posted in the list for trial list this day and a request is being made to adjourn the case. 2. Since the case is at the fag end and it is in the list for trial this day, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the impugned order. I make it clear that dismissal of the application (I.A. No.7995 of 2010) if has any bearing on the decision learned Munsiff may take in the suit, it is open to the petitioner to O.P(C) No.2649 of 2011 -: 3 :- challenge the said order as provided in Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Without prejudice to that right of petitioner, this Original Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv O.P(C) No.2649 of 2011 -: 4 :-