IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5367 of 2008(L) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7/12/07 IN IA.2146/07 IN OS.243/2002 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.DEVADASAN, B.S.BUILDING, KAVIRAJAPURAM, KOLLA, PANAVOOR, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, P.V.HOUSE, POOVAKKAD, ATTINPURAM, PANAVOOR. BY ADV.SHRI L.MOHANAN, SC KFC GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5367 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to set aside Ext.P6 order. It was an application filed by the plaintiff in the suit to set aside C1(a) and C1(c) plan and report and to accept C1(b) as the correct one. The plaintiff is claiming right over 14 cents of property in Re.Sy. No. 187/2 of Block No.20 of Panavoor Village and now another defendant has also come forward with a contention that he is also entitled for the property. Kerala Financial Corporation is proceeding against the property mortgaged by one Thulaseedharan Nair towards realisation of debt. So the question that has to be considered in this case is which is the property that is mortgaged, whether there is any property left out and whether the plaintiff is having title and possession over the property as contended by him. The Commissioner, who has inspected the property, has submitted three plans namely (1) on the basis of old survey (2) on the basis of resurvey and (3) on the basis of the documents. Unless the entire materials are placed before the court and it is considered totally, the court may not be able to arrive at a decision. It is in that angle that WPC NO 5367/08 2 the court below has proceeded and dismissed the application for setting aside the Commissioner's plan and report. 2. I do not find any error in such an approach and therefore the writ petition is dismissed. But I make it clear that things are not conclusive and the court has to independently approach to find out whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the case. After the entire evidence is adduced, it is for the court to decide which of the plans, namely C1(a), C1(b) or C1(c), is acceptable . The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 5367/08 3 WPC NO 5367/08 4