IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 RSA.No. 540 of 2008 ----------------------- AS.346/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.2329/2000 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS:APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------- 1. THANKA, 60 YEARS, W/O.CHENANGATH KUNJAKKAN, INJAMUDI VILAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK 2. KUNJAKKAN, AGED 63, S/O.CHENANGATH KORANCHEERI, INJAMUDI VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RE.SURVEY), CHERPU, THRISSUR 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR 3. SREEKUMAR THAMBI @ THAMBI, 39 YEARS, S/O.AARATTUPUZHA VARIATH LATE IKKANDAN WARRIER, AARATUPUZHA VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISUR TALUK 4. SREENIVASAN, S/O.AARATTUPUZHA VARIATH LATE IKKANDAN WARRIER, AARATUPUZHA VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. MOHANAN, S/O.AARAATTUPUZHA VARIATH LATE SARADA WARRASIAR, AARATUPUZHA VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 6. KOCHAMMINI, D/O.ARATUPUZHA VARIATH PAPPI VARASIA, POONKUNNAM VILLAGE DESOM THRISSUR TALUK 7. BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O.VADAKEVARIATH LATE KRISHNANKUTTY WARRIER, VENGANELLUR DESOM CHELAKARA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK 8. MANOJ, S/O.VADAKEVARIATH BHAGYALAKSHMI, VENGANELLUR DESOM CHELAKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK 9. JAYAN, S/O.VADAKEVARIATH BHAGYALAKSHMI, VENGANELLUR DESOM CHELEKKARA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RSA 540/08 1 K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------- R.S.A. No 540 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th July 2008 JUDGMENT It is against the concurrent dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and fixation of boundary and injunction that the defeated plaintiffs have come up with this Regular Second Appeal. It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that the suit itself was necessitated on account of the fact that the resurvey authorities have shown the width of the pathway on the northern side of the plaint schedule property as 5 koles whereas in Ext B1 partition the pathway provided is having a width of only 4 koles and in fact there is a pathway of only 4 koles on the northern side of plaint schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs as also on the north of the property of defendants 5 to 9, but the resurvey authorities have planted survey stones encroaching into one kole more towards south and have shown the pathway as one having a width of 5 koles and it is therefore to avert an invasion into the extent of the schedule property that the suit has been filed. All RSA 540/08 2 the same, it is his case that the northern boundary of the schedule property as also of the property of defendants 5 to 9 remained in tact and nobody has widened the road except that survey stones are planted encroaching one kole into the schedule property. It is further contended that the appeal submitted before the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records has been heard by Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records and he has dismissed the appeal so filed. Counsel submits that without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to approach the survey authorities with Ext B1 partition deed and to get the discrepancy in the width of the pathway rectified this appeal be disposed of. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the appellants are to be permitted to approach the Survey Authorities to have their grievance redressed with respect to Ext B1 partition deed which provide for the northern pathway and to have the survey records rectified, if need be, after verification. 2. In the result,I dispose of this R.S.A without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to approach the survey authorities and to have the mistake in the width of the pathway got rectified producing Ext B1 partition deed before them, if need be, after a proper RSA 540/08 3 measurement made at site. It is made clear that the concurrent decree passed against the appellants will not stand in the way of the revenue authorities doing the needful if convinced of the genuineness of the claim advanced. Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 29/07/2008 en [true copy]