IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 RSA.No. 348 of 2011() --------------------- AS.74/2000 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR I.A.NO.2237/1994IN OS.450/1993 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS & DEFENDANTS 1 & 3 to 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MAMBARATH KARTHYAYANI, W/O.LATE PADMANABHA MARAR, AGED 70 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.(DIED) LEGAL HEIRS RECORDED. LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT RECORDED IST APPELLANT DIED AND APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 AND 6TH RESPONDENT ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 4/11/2011 IN MEMO BEARING CF NO.2713/11 DATED 26/5/2011. 2. KANDAMBETH REMADEVI, D/O.LATE PADMANABHA MARAR, AGED 46, NO OCCUPATION, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. KANDAMBETH RAJANI, D/O.LATE PADMANABHA MARAR, AGED 44, NO OCCUPATION, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. KANDAMBETH ASHA, D/O.LATE PADMANABHA MARAR, AGED 38, NO OCCUPATION, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. KANDAMBETH SULOCHANA, D/O.LATE PADMANABHA MARAR, AGED 35, NO OCCUPATION, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER(PLAINTIFF) &RESPONDENTS 2 &7 TO 10& DEFENDANTS 2 & 7 TO 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KIZHAKKE VEETIL USHA, D/O.SHARADA, AGED 46 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT ANTHOOR AMSOM, DESOM, THALIYIL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK - 670 003. 2. KANDAMBETH KUNHIRAMA MARAR (DIED). 3. PALAKKODANTAKATHU MAMMAD, BUSINESS, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670142. 4. PALAKKODANTAKATHU UMMER, BUSINESS, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670142. 5. AZEEZ, S/O.PALAKKAN MAMMAD, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670142. 6. KANDAMBETH SIVAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE PADMANABHA MARAR, AGED 48, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT RASHTRAPREM, THARUN MANDAL, NEAR SANVIK COLONY ROAD, BHOSSARY, PUNE 39. 7. P.V.NARAYANI MARASSIAR, W/O.LATE KUNHIRAMA MARAR, AGED 68, KADAMBETH HOUSE, P.O.PANNIYOOR, (VIA KARIMBAM), PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM 670142. 8. RAJEEVAN P.V., S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMA MARAR, AGED 42, P.O.PANNIYOOR, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM 670142. 9. P.V.SUDHA, D/O.LATE KUNHIRAMA MARAR, AGED 38, KANDAMBETH HOUSE, PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM 670142. 10. RATHI P.V., D/O.LATE KUNHIRAMA MARAR, AGED 68, KANDAMBETH HOUSE, P.O.PANNIYOOR, (VIA KARIMBAM), PANNIYOOR AMSOM, POOMANGALAM DESOM 670142. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== R.S.A. No. 348 OF 2011 =========================== Dated this the 4th day of November,2011 JUDGMENT Defendants 1 and 3 to 6 in O.S.450/1993 on the file of Munsiff Court, Taliparamba are the appellants. First respondent is the plaintiff. Pursuant to the preliminary decree for fixation of the boundary, I.A.2237/1994 was filed before Munsiff Court, Taliparamba to pass a final decree. Learned Munsiff appointed a Commission. The Commissioner demarcated the properties and fixed the boundary. Learned Munsiff accepting Ext.C2(a) and Ext.C2 (b) plans passed a final decree fixing the boundary in accordance with the Ext.C2(a) and Ext.C2(b) plans. Appellants challenged the final decree before Sub Court, Payyannur in A.S.74/2000. Learned Sub Judge on reappreciation of the evidence confirmed the final decree and RSA 348/2011 2 dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants was heard. 3. Though learned counsel argued that the preliminary decree cannot be passed in a suit for fixation of boundary, it is a matter to be agitated while challenging the preliminary decree. When the preliminary decree was not challenged and the appellants participated in the final decree proceedings, they are not entitled to challenge the final decree on that ground. The Commissioner has demarcated the properties in Ext.C2(a) and C2(b) plan. Appellants have not even filed any objection. In such circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006