IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16817 of 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- OS.NO. 182/2008 of MUNSIFF'S COURT PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KUNHIRAMAN T.K., S/O.RAMAN, KOROME AMSOM, KANAYI DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CHERIYAMBU, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, KOROME AMSOM, KANAYI DESOM. 2. KUNCHIRI ALIAS JANAKI, D/O.CHANDUKUTTY, KOROME AMSOM, KANAYI DESOM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.16817/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.182/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PAYYANNUR. P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 1 & 2 (RESPONDENTS HEREIN) IN THE ABOVE O.S. P3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN O.S.NO.182/2008 P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2010 IN IA NO.435/2010 IN OS NO.182/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.16817 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.182 of 2008 of the court of leaned Munsiff, Payyannur. That is a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents and their men from trespassing into the suit property, committing waste or interfering with peaceful possession of petitioner of the said property. Relief of injunction was valued at Rs.500/- and court fee of Rs.20 was paid under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and submitted a report. Petitioner filed I.A. No.435 of 2010 to remit the report to the Commissioner to determine market value of the property and report on the existence of boundaries. That application was dismissed as per Ext.P4, order dated February 24, 2010 which is under challenge in this proceeding. Learned counsel submitted that if not the market value, it is necessary to ascertain eastern boundary of the property for a proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. W.P(C) No.16817 of 2010 -: 2 :- 2. I have gone through Ext.P4, order, the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the sketch produced. So far as determination of market value is concerned, this is not a suit based on title. It is merely for injunction and as such, as things now stand it is not necessary to assess market value of the property. 3. So far as request to ascertain the eastern boundary of suit property is concerned, the Commissioner has reported that on the AB line (towards east of the suit property) up to the middle from the northern side, suit property is situated on a higher level from the rest of the property. On the further east and that thereafter until the southern end there is no specific boundary. Commissioner, however found a boundary of laterite stone on the 'AE' line. It is not as if the Advocate Commissioner has not reported about eastern boundary of the suit property. He has reported what he has seen. A remittance of the report is not required. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv