IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15454 of 2008(M) -------------------------- OS.213/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SHINDO VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, NEDUNGATTU HOUSE, KARINGAZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGI JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, ITTIYANIKKAL HOUSE, KOZHIPPILLY, VAREPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. SHEEBA, W/O.REJI JOSE, -DO- -DO- BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15454 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in O.S.No.213/2006, on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, is the petitioner. Respondents are the defendants. Petitioner had filed a suit for fixation of the boundary. A Commissioner was earlier appointed and he submitted Ext.P4 report along with a survey plan. Respondents then filed I.A.No.925/2008 for appointment of survey Commissioner to demarcate the property belonging to him under Document No.4778/1999. The learned Munsiff under Ext.P7 order directed appointment of Commission on deposit of Rs.2,000/=. Taluk Surveyor was also directed to assist the Commissioner. The said order is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in Ext.P4 report submitted by the Commissioner, the property belonging to the respondents under Document No.4778/1999 was demarcated by the Commissioner as the W.P.(C) No.15454/2008 2 northern plot and the property belonging to the petitioners under Document No.1266/2005 was demarcated as plot No.1 and the property belonging to the petitioner under Document No.2519/06 was demarcated as plot No.2, and respondents did not file any objection to the report and plan and in such circumstances, a second commission should not have been appointed. The learned counsel also argued that while submitting Ext.P4 report, Commissioner has considered Document No.4778/99 and as the property covered by that document is already shown as a separate plot, there is no necessity to appoint a new Commission. The learned counsel further argued that if at all, only a clarification is necessary from the earlier Commissioner and Ext.P7 order is to be quashed. 3. It is admitted case that property claimed by the petitioner as well as respondents originally belonged to the father. Father, as per Document No.4778/1999 transferred 25 cents in favour of the respondents. Subsequently, under Document No.1266/2005, 25 cents was transferred to the petitioner. Thereafter under Document No.2519/06, one acre 15 cents was also transferred to the petitioner. In Ext.P4 report, properties claimed by the petitioner under the said documents were separately demarcated. Later father executed W.P.(C) No.15454/2008 3 Document No.3024/2006 clarifying the earlier document No.4778/1999. The Commissioner in Ext.P4 report though verified document No.4778/1999, was not specifically directed to demarcate the said property. As the suit is for fixation of the boundary, the same cannot be fixed without identifying the properties covered by these documents. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P7 order passed by the learned Munsiff. It is more so, because the Commissioner so appointed is the very same Commissioner who submitted Ext.P4 report. Commissioner is to identify the properties covered under all the documents and is to mark the properties covered by the documents, so that court can correctly fix the boundaries. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.