IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5447 of 2008(W) -------------------------------------- OS.378/2003 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- KOLAYAKKARAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL HAMZA, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 60 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT PUSHPAGIRI, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,DESOM, TALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU, SRI.M.C.BIJU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KOCHAMKUNNEL ANEES JOSEPH, D/O. JOSEPH CHACKO, AGED 48 YEARS, NUN, SISTERS OF CHARITY OF ST.JOHN OF GOD SABHA, AMMAMKULAM, KOOVERY AMSOM, PADAPPENGAD DESOM,TALIPARAMBA TALUK 2. CHAVAKKTTU ANTONY, S/O. PAUL, AGED 62 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT AMMAMKULAM, KOOVERY AMSOM, PADAPPENGAD DESOM. 3. K.V. UMMER HAJI, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 67 YEARS, BUSINESS, KATTITTA VALAPPIL HOUSE, KOOVERY AMSOM, PADAPPENGAD DESOM. 4. KATTITTA VALAPPIL ABU HAJI, S/O. KUNHAMMED, AGED 56 YEARS, BUSINESS, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KUPPAM DESOM. 5. PALAKKODAN THARAYIL SAKEENA, D/O. ABDU HAJI, AGED 27 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KUPPAM DESOM. 6. MALIKKANTAKATH ABOOBACKER, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 54 YEARS, PEON, KOOVELI AMSOM, CHAPPARAPPADAVU DESOM. BY ADV. SRI. P.U. SHAILAJAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 5447 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Taliparamba in I.A.2131/05 in O.S.378/03. It is an application filed by the plaintiff for remission of the Commissioner's plan and report. The remission was sought on the ground that the Commissioner has not stated about the age of the boundaries and that he has not measured the defendants' property. The suit is one for recovery of possession on the strength of title of the plaintiff. It is a well settled principle that the plaintiff will not get a decree on the weakness of the defendants' case. Therefore if the plaintiff is able to establish his right over the property then his duty ends there and if anything else to be done it is for the defendants to do. So far as the age of the boundaries are concerned the party can examine the Commissioner who had visited the property and also adduce other evidence to prove W.P.C 5447 OF 2008 -:2:- the same and so for that purpose also remission is not necessary. So leaving open the right of the writ petitioner to adduce evidence regarding the correctness of the Commissioner's plan and report I close this writ petition. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-