IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2016 of 2008(M) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 1339/07 AND 1395/07 IN FDIA.55/2007 IN OS 19/84 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. PONATHIKKANDI THAZHEKUNI MANI, AGED 80 YEARS, VELAM (PO), KURICHIAKOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. ELAMBILASSERY KUNHIKANARAN, S/O.UNNEERA, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT PONATHIKANDI, THAZHAKUNI. 3. THANKAM, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.MANI, RESIDING AT PONATHKANDI THAZHAKUNI. 4. PUSHPAVATHY, D/O.MANI, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT PONATHKANDI THAZHAKUNI. 5. KUNIYIL SURAJA, W/O.DECEASED NANU, VELAM (PO), KURICHIKKARA, KUTTIADY, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. JIMNA, AGED 32 YEARS, VELAM (PO), KURICHIKKARA, KUTTIADI, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. SHIMNA, AGED 30 YEARS, VELAM (PO), KURICHIKKARA, KUTTIADY, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.VATHSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SOOLANKANDIYIL KALLIANI, D/O.KANNAN, AGED 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHANPURAYIL, KUTTIADI (PO), OORATH. 2. SOOLANKANDIYIL AMMALU, D/O.KANNAN, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARUVERATTU HOUSE, VELAM (PO), MANTHERATHOOR. WP(C) No. 2016/2008 3. SOOLANKANDIYIL NANU, S/O.KANNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, VELAM (PO), CHERUKUNNU. 4. SOOLANKANDIYIL SANKARAN, S/O.KANNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, VELAM (PO), CHERUKUNNU. 5. KIZHAKKE MAYINGALATHIL BABY, S/O.BALAN, AGED 48 YEARS, MANTHARATHOOR. 6. JANAKI, D/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADHANATH, VELAM (PO), CHERUKUNNU, KUTHALI (VIA), VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. AJITHAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADHANATH, VELAM (PO), CHERUKUNNU, KUTHALI (VIA), VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 8. ANIL, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADHANATH, VELAM (PO), CHERUKUNNU, KUTHALI (VIA), VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 9. SUNIL, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADHANATH, VELAM (PO), CHERUKUNNU, KUTHALI (VIA), VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 10. BABU, S/O.CHIRUTHA, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKE PARAMBU, MUYIPPOTH (PO), (VIA) MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 11. PRASANNA, D/O.CHIRUTHA, RESIDING AT THEKKE PARAMBU, MUYIPPOTH (PO), (VIA) MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 12. SASI, S/O.CHIRUTHA, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKE PARAMBU, MUYIPPOTH (PO), (VIA) MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 13. LATHA, D/O.CHIRUTHA, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKE PARAMBU, MUYIPPOTH (PO), (VIA) MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- WP(C) No. 2016 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed against the interim order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Koyilandi in I.A.1339/07 and 1395/07 in Final Decree Application No. 55/07 in O.S. 19/84. The grievance of the petitioners is regarding the observation contained in para 4 of the order whereby the court said “ the Commissioner will look into the contentions in both the applications except the claim for mesne profit shown in I.A.198/90 and file fresh report and plan”. The liability starts right from 1984. The value of coconut cannot be fixed as the same in 1984 and 2007. So the varied rates, which are there, according to the Government Notification and orders have to be perused. Therefore, the court cannot blindly accept the value shown in the commissioner's report but the court shall permit the parties to file their objections and also permit them to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their contentions regarding the yield derived, as well as the price fixed by the Commissioner. So, in other words, I clarify that just because the court has directed the commissioner not to look into the question of mesne profit, it does not mean that the parties are WP(C) No. 2016/2008 -2- prevented from challenging the report on mesne profits by adducing documentary as well as oral evidence. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg