Cherian vs Joseph

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—Heard.

The petitioners are the defendants in OS No. 37/2012 of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. The suit was filed by the respondent for restitution of possession. According to the respondent/plaintiff, he and his wife obtained the property as per sale deed No. 838/1/11 dated 29.04.2011 of SRO, Koothattukulam. Allegedly, though in the sale deed, the extent of the property is shown as 80 cents, on actual measurement, it has an area of 82= cents with a ''kayyala'' on the southern boundary. The case of the respondent was that the petitioners, who are the defendants, destroyed the ''kayyala'' on the southern boundary and forcibly took possession of the southern portion of his property, which is specifically indicated as plaint ''A'' schedule property in the plaint. The petitioners, who are the defendants, are having property on the southern side of the plaint ''A'' schedule property.

The suit was resisted by the petitioners contending that the respondent is having title to 80 cents of property only and the boundary stones on the southern side was clandestinely removed by the respondent.

To prove the case of the respondent, he sought the intervention of the court to measure out the property by an Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, he filed Ext. P3, IA No. 1613/2012, to measure his property as well as the remaining property of the petitioners. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial court submitted the report and sketch. The petitioners want to quash Ext. P5 order on Ext. P3 application.

What is relevant for consideration in the case is the identity of property sought to be recovered by the respondent, who is the plaintiff. He is only trying to prove his case by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly, dismissed.