IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 FAO.No. 330 of 2007() ------------------------------- AS.16/2002 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA OS.911/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K. NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED.67 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, PANNIVIZHA VALIAVEETIL, KIZHAKKAN OTHARA MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 2. SANTHAMMA, W/O.P.K. NARAYANA PILLAI, PANNIVIZHA VALIAVEETIL, KIZHAKKAN OTHARA MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------ P.K. GOPALA PILLAI, PANNIVIZHA PUTHENPURAYIL, KIZHAKKAN OTHARA MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.S.SUBHASH CHAND. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, ALONG WITH FAO NO. 336 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: FAO.No. 330 of 2007 ORDER ON I.A. NO.4221/2007 IN FAO NO.330/2007 DISMISSED 15/03/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NOs. 330 & 336 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the order of remand passed in the common judgment in A.S.Nos.15/02 and 16/02. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of appeals are as follows. The plaintiffs in O.S.911/96 are one P.K.Narayana Pillai and his wife. The defendant therein is one Gopala Pillai. In O.S.834/96 the plaintiff is this Gopala Pillai and the defendant is Narayana Pillai. 2. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.911/96 is that the property described as item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was obtained by the plaintiffs and the father of the 2nd plaintiff by virtue of a sale deed No.1064/67 of SRO Aranmula. On the death of the father of the 2nd plaintiff, the plaintiffs have became the absolute owners in possession of the property. On the south and west of item No.1 there is a serpent temple with a compound and it is described as item F.A.O. Nos.330 & 336 OF 2007 -:2:- No.2 in O.S.911/96. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.911/96 is to the effect that the defendant in the suit has disturbed the natural boundary of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and is attempting to grab a portion of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property into his possession. In O.S.834/96 the defendant in O.S.911/96 would contend that the property therein was obtained by the mother of the plaintiff by virtue of the partition held in 1101 M.E. and subsequently by virtue of the partition in 1112 M.E. it was partitioned in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's property in that suit is a serpent temple and the appurtenant land. Now the crux of the matter is which is the property that has been obtained by the plaintiff in O.S.911/96 under Ext.A1 and whether it is the property therein is now attempted to be trespassed upon by the defendant in the said suit. F.A.O. Nos.330 & 336 OF 2007 -:3:- 3. On the contra the contention of the plaintiff in the other case is that the plaintiff in O.S.911/96 is attempting to trespass into the serpent temple and the compound and therefore he requests for an injunction. In order to resolve the dispute between the parties it is absolutely necessary to identify the property claimed by both parties in both suits with reference to the title deeds and thereafter demarcate the boundary between the two which will lead to the fixation of the boundary. Now the appellate court finds the properties have not been properly identified and therefore the matter requires reconsideration. Since both the parties have come in the party array as plaintiffs in suits, a correct decision can be arrived at only by demarcating the properties claimed by the parties with reference to their title deeds. If it is approached in that angle then only there can be a proper resolution of the dispute. The appellate court has directed identification of the properties and therefore I do not find any mistake committed by the Court below. The learned counsel F.A.O. Nos.330 & 336 OF 2007 -:4:- for the appellant would submit before me in another suit the matter has been dealt with. If it is so when the matter comes after remand it is for him to produce those documents and convince the conscience of the Court regarding the identification of the property. Needless to say when such a document is produced the other side can oppose and the matter can be heard. Therefore I do not disturb the finding on the order of remand but make it very clear for a proper resolution of the dispute between the parties, the properties have to be identified with respect to their title deeds and thereafter, after permitting the parties to adduce evidence, the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. FAOs are disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-