IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5348 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/01/2008 IN IA.NO.8191/2007 IN OS.644/1996 OF II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .............................................. PETITIONER: ------------------ ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. VYSYAM VEETTIL ALIKUTTY, MANALI DESOM, CHIRANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUHARABI. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. AYYAPPAN, S/O. PULICHIKKOTT PANKAN, THALAKKOTTUKARA DESOM, CHIRANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY. 2. MANIKUTTY, S/O. VADAKKOOTT CHAKKU, THALAKKOTTUKARA DESOM, CHIRANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY. 3. CHIRANELLUR KSHEEROLPADAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. SAROJINI, W/O. PULICHIKKATT AYYAPPAN, THALAKKOTTUKARA DESOM, CHIRANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY. 5. SAROJINI, W/O. VELLAROTTIL KOCHUNNI, MANALIL DESOM, CHIRANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY. 6. ASOKAN, S/O. PULIKKAKKATT KOCHUNNI, THALAKKOTTUKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5348 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur in I.A.No.8191/2007 in O.S.No.644/1996. It is an application filed to remit the Commissioner's report and plan. The suit is with respect to recovery of possession of five cents of property. The Commissioner who inspected the property had demarcated seven cents of property which is mentioned in document 1552/82 and that it is comprised in survey Nos. 727/1, 727/2 and 727/3. The grievance of the plaintiff is that five cents of property which belongs to him and for which he seeks recovery of possession has not been properly demarcated by the Commissioner and therefore the plan and report are not useful for the purpose of a proper disposal of the case. The learned subordinate judge held that relevant materials had not been furnished and therefore, it was not in a position to find out the same. It is true that in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title of the small extent of land meticulous and W.P.(C) No.5348/2008 2 precise consideration of the identification of the property with respect to the title deed is a must. If the court ultimately finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree unless there is a proper plan showing the correctness, it may be difficult to pass a decree. I agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the writ petitioner has not supplied sufficient materials. At this stage, I do not want to interfere with the decision of the court below but I make it clear that the present writ petitioner can adduce evidence before the court at the stage of trial and when he is able to convince the court regarding the inadequacy or the mistake committed by the Commissioner in its plan and report, the court shall not hesitate to remit or set aside the same, get a new plan and report and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if he is not able to establish any of this thing, he may not be able to succeed in getting a remission or setting aside the Commissioner's plan and report. By reserving that right, this writ petition is dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps