IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 RP.No. 1133 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN SA.684/1998 Dated 30/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT/1ST DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------- KOTTARA BALAN NAIR, S/O. RAMANKUTTY NAIR, NITHIYA SREE HOUSE, NELLIKKODE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): (APPELLANT & 2nd RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF & D2) ---------------------------------------------- 1. P.N.PREMA GANGADHARAN NAIR, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY KURUP, EDAKKATTUPARAMBATH HOUSE, NELLIKKODE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. 2. KOTTARA PADMANABHAN NAIR, S/O. RAMANKUTTY NAIR, NITHIYA SREE HOUSE, NELLIKKODE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN FOR R1 SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN FOR R1 SRI.T.SHYAM PRASAD FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.No.1133 of 2009 in S.A.No.684 of 1998 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011. ORDER This application is for review of judgment dated March 30, 2009 in S.A.No.684 of 1998. 1st respondent in the Second Appeal has filed this review petition on the ground that there is apparent error on the face of record in that this Court has observed that petitioner and 2nd respondent in the Second Appeal have no right on the eastern, northern and western sides of the suit property. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the said observations are not correct and that this Court has proceeded on the basis that as per Exts.C4 and C5, the suit property is only ABCD in Ext.C5, plan and accordingly, relief was granted to the appellant/plaintiff. It is submitted by learned counsel that petitioner has acquired 2.1 cents on the west of the AD line as per a document of the year, 2000. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that property on the east of BC line in Ext.C5, plan belongs to the petitioner. In that view of the matter the observation made by this Court is patently erroneous. 2. Learned counsel for 1st respondent has contended that the question of law raised in the Second Appeal is whether the first appellate court was justified in deviating from the well settled law that when there is conflict between extent, measurement and boundaries, the boundaries will prevail and whether in RP No.1133/2009 in SA No.684/1998 2 the circumstances a suit for injunction is maintainable. It is argued by learned counsel for 1st respondent that the eastern boundary of the property belonging to the 1st respondent is the thodu and hence, the disputed portion beyond the BC line in Ext.C5 also belongs and is in the possession of the 1st respondent. 3. In paragraph 3 of the judgment sought to be reviewed this Court observed that it is admitted that respondents (petitioner and 2nd respondent in the appeal) did not have any claim over any portion of the land on east, north and west of the suit property. It would appear from a reading of the judgment that this Court proceeded on the basis that the plot marked ABCD in Ext.C5, plan is the suit property. Now, 1st respondent is claiming right, title and interest over the small strip of land marked BCHG in Ext.C5, plan. This Court did not go into the question of entitlement of parties to that plot which according to 1st respondent formed part of the suit property. It is treating ABCD plot in Ext.C5 as the suit property that this Court granted relief to the 1st respondent permitting him to put up boundary on the north of nadavarmbu in the suit property and marked in the ABCD plot in Ext.C5, plan. It appears to me that for the said reason there is an error apparent on the face of record in that this Court did not consider the question whether the disputed strip of land on the east of BCHG line in Ext.C5, plan belongs to the 1st respondent. 4. So far as the property on the west of the suit property is concerned, there appears to be no dispute between the parties that petitioner has acquired RP No.1133/2009 in SA No.684/1998 3 2.1 cents on the west of ABCD plot in Ext.C5 as per a document of the year 2000. But in view of what I have stated above, a reconsideration of the Second Appeal is required since I find that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Resultantly this application is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 30.03.2009 in S.A.No.684 of 1998 are reviewed. Post the Second Appeal for hearing before the appropriate Bench. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks