IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30686 of 2008(C) --------------------------------------- O.S. NO. 789/2006 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM. .................... PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KESAVA PANICKER, AGED 66, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA VITTYAM, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN. RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------------- BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KESAVA PANICKER, AGED 75, RESIDING AT VELANVILAKATHU VEEDU, CHERUVAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.30686 OF 2008(C) ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner instituted O.S.No.789/2006 for fixation of boundary of the schedule property. He wanted the boundary of the property with the property of the respondent to be fixed as per his title deed. Respondent/defendant contested the suit. Court below appointed Advocate Commissioner and Taluk Surveyor to measure the property. Exhibit C2 is the commission report. Exhibit C1 is the plan based on the re-survey plan. Exhibit C1(a) is the plan based on the title deed of the petitioner. Both sides filed objections to the report and plans. The Commissioner and Taluk Surveyor were examined. Court below found that Exhibit C1 is not in tune with the resurvey plan, which is marked as Exhibit B1 and that there is vast difference in A D line as per Exhibits C1 and B1. Boundary could not be fixed as per Exhibit C1. Hence, learned Principal Munsiff remitted Exhibits C1 and W.P.(C) No.30686/2008 - 2 - C2 to the Advocate Commissioner to measure the property as per Exhibit B1 and submit plan. Petitioner is aggrieved by that order. 3. Learned counsel submitted that there is no dispute of title between the parties and that Exhibit B1 was stealthily introduced at the instance of respondent/defendant. 4. In paragraph 10 of the written statement, respondent contended that Taluk Surveyor had measured the property and fixed the survey between boundary. The properties of the petitioner and the respondent and the latter had constructed a compound wall on that boundary, from east to west at a length of 51 metres and height of 1 foot which, according to the respondent, was destroyed by the petitioner. 5. The question whether Exhibit B1 could be acted upon is not a matter to be decided by this Court at this stage. In the case of dispute on boundary, it is necessary to have proper plans W.P.(C) No.30686/2008 - 3 - obtained after survey of the properties. While retaining Exhibit C1(a) plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the Surveyor based on the document of title relied on by the petitioner, the court has only directed measurement of the properties as per Exhibit B1. It is open to the petitioner to prefer objection to the report and plan being submitted by the Commissioner. There is no reason to interfere with the order challenged in this proceedings. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE skr // True copy // P.A. to Judge.