IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22567 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THOMAS GEORGE, AGED 55, S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MANNARAMALA KARA, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHANCHERRY TALUK. 2. SHAJI GEORGE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MANNARAMALA KARA, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHANCHERRY TALUK. 3. JOJI GEORGE, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MANNARAMALA KARA, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHANCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SRI.SHINE VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE. 2. TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE. 3. SASIKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN NARAYANAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KUMILY, KUMILY VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. 4. A.R.JAYAN, S/O.RAJAPPAN, AROOLIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY KUMILY. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).22567/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners claim to be the absolute owners in possession of an extent of 55 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.13/1-52 of Kumily Village. Petitioners got the said property mutated in their name and included in Thandaper account No.9031 as evidenced by Ext.P4. Properties are claimed to be lying contiguously. They undertook construction of a building in the said property. Reference is made to Ext.P10 building permit. Apparently the 3rd respondent, according to the petitioners, made an attempt to purchase the said property. There is a Suit pending between the parties as O.S.No.44/2009 before the Munsiff Court in which the petitioners have sought for permanent injunction against the 3rd respondent. Ext.P7 interim injunction order has also been passed thereon. An Advocate Commissioner has inspected the property and filed Ext.P8. 3rd respondent has in turn filed O.S.68/2009 before the same Court seeking a declaration of title in relation to a portion of the plaint schedule property included in Ext.P6. W.P.(C).22567/09 2 It is therefore, clear that there are Suits pending between the parties. In the meanwhile, Surveyor has proposed a measurement of the property under Rule 43 of the Survey and Boundaries Rules, as evidenced by Ext.P14 which has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 4th respondent is not a registered owner of the property in relation to which a survey measurement is sought for. In the circumstances, Rule 43 of the Rules is not available, it is contended. 3. It is open to the petitioners to challenge the request made by the 4th respondent. But if measurement is actually conducted by the Surveyor, the acceptability of the same will be subject to orders to be passed by the Civil Court. It is open to the petitioners to raise all such objections before the Civil Court. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs