IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 FAO.No. 148 of 2008() ------------------------------ AS. NO.137/1997 IN OS. NO.230/1991 OF THE SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. ..... APPELLANT/ IST RESPONDENT/ IST DEFANDANT -------------------- MUHAMMED, SON OF CHAKKINGAL ALIKUTTY, RESIDING AT TRIKKADEERI AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------ MUHAMMED, S/O.THOITTIPARAMBIL JAMALU, THACHANATTUKARA AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== FAO No.148 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of remand passed by the District Court, Palakkad in A.S.No.137 of 1997. This litigation is shuttling between the trial court and the High Court and ultimately now the District Court has remanded the case to the trial court. The plaintiff in the suit claims partition of the property having an extent of 40 cents and 73 cents respectively in Sy.Nos.5/5 and 6/3. The appellate court accepted certain documents giving the reasons for receipt of the same. The appellate court also observed the direction of this Court in F.A.O.No.42 of 2003 that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the appellant to obtain certified copies and produce the same. Learned District Judge has considered those documents which are of earlier years , i.e. 3.12.1928, 25.8.1947 and 29.7.1950 and arrived at a decision that if at all there is any right it has to be confined to Sy.No.5/5 for the reason that the documents of title only show that. The learned District Judge felt that the court below did not properly consider whether the entire extent comprised in Sy.No.5/5, i.e. 40 cents had FAO 148/2008 -:2:- been acquired and there is no property left. Therefore, the court felt that the property claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of the documents can be identified and thereafter the court can come to the conclusion that whether the entire property from that has been acquired for the canal and if so the plaintiff will not be entitled to any right over the property. I feel this is the only possible practical method to arrive at a proper decision in this case. Therefore I do not want to interfere with the said decision. Being an old matter, I am sure that the trial court shall bestow its best attention to see that the Commissioner's plan and report are made available at the earliest and preference is given to this case for an early disposal. With the above observations, the FAO is disposed of. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-