Kerala High Court
V.U. Paulose vs V.P. Molly on 15 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
OP(C) NO.2602 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2023 IN E.P.No.1/2022 IN O.S
507/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER:
V.U. PAULOSE, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN,
VALIYAKATTAYIL HOUSE, MULAKKULAM VADAKKEKKARA,
PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN -
686664.
BY ADVS.
NASEER MOIDU
BINOY DAVIS
RESPONDENT/JUGGMENT DEBTOR:
1 V.P. MOLLY, AGED 68 YEARS, D/O.PAULOSE,
VALIYAKATTAYIL HOUSE, MULAKKULAM VADAKKEKKARA,
PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN -
684446.
2 V.P. THOMSON, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE,
VALIYAKATTAYIL HOUSE, MULAKKULAM, VADAKKEKKARA,
PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN -
686664.
BY ADVS.
ESM.KABEER
C.SHEEBA(K/273/2012)
JACOB P.ALEX, LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2024, THE COURT ON 15.02.2024, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 2 -
'CR'
JUDGMENT
Dated, this the 15th February, 2024 An interesting question as regards the applicability of Order 21, Rule 32(5) arises for consideration in this Original Petition. In the execution of a decree for declaration of title, followed by a prohibitory injunction, whether a Commission can be issued to construct a compound wall, which relief was not, in terms, granted, is the issue involved.
2. Having regard to the seriousness and intricacies of the issue involved, this Court appointed Adv.Jacob P.Alex as Amicus Curiae.
3. Heard Sri.Naseer Moidu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.E.S.M.Kabeer, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Amicus. OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 3 -
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the title of the petitioner over the scheduled property has been declared, followed by a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, from destroying boundary demarcations therein and also from doing any act interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Based upon the said decree, the petitioner attempted to put up a compound wall within his boundary, which was obstructed by the respondents herein. In such circumstances, an Execution Petition was filed vide Ext.P5, alleging that the judgment debtors did not allow the decree holder to construct the compound wall on the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property. Ext.P6 application was also filed to appoint a Commissioner, assisted by a retired survey superintendent, for supervising the construction of the eastern boundary. Ext.P5 Execution Petition OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 4 -
and Ext.P6 Commission application, both, were dismissed by Ext.P10 common order, holding that there is no decree for fixation of boundary and that the execution court go beyond the decree. It was also found that the judgment debtor has not made any obstruction. Ext.P10 is under challenge in this Original Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, once the petitioner's title is declared, followed by a decree of prohibitory injunction, interdicting interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the defendants/judgment debtors, the decree takes within its sweep the petitioner's right to put up a compound wall. Obstruction, if any, in exercise of such right can surely be remedied under Order 21, Rule 32(5), especially when the explanation thereof makes the provision applicable to prohibitory injunctions. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of a OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 5 -
learned Single Judge of this Court in C.R.P.No.44/2016 dated 15.03.2017 in this regard.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the present Original petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable and the petitioner ought to have taken resort to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As regards the scope of interference under Article 227, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Others [AIR 2003 SC 3044], wherein the Honourable Supreme court held that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly, only to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority; and not for correcting mere errors. Referring to Ext.P5 Execution Petition, learned counsel for the respondents would point out that there was no specific allegation with respect to obstruction in OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 6 -
constructing the compound wall, whereas a specific date is mentioned as regards the alleged obstruction caused to the plaintiff from entering into the plaint schedule property for taking coconut, that is to say, on 11.01.2021. Reckoned from that date, the Execution Petition is filed after one year from the alleged date of violation. Secondly, learned counsel pointed out that the granted reliefs were only declaration of title and a prohibitory injunction. No positive act was directed to be done under the decree as in the case of a mandatory injunction; and there was no direction enabling construction of the compound wall, wherefore, Ext.P10 order cannot be flawed at all. Thirdly, it was pointed out that a cause of action with respect to construction of compound wall was not available at the time when the suit was filed. The same is a new cause of action, for which, the decree in question cannot afford adequate relief. The proposition that an execution court cannot go beyond the decree, which weighed OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 7 -
with the learned Munsiff, was reiterated by the learned counsel. Two decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court were also relied upon on namely, Evuru Venkata Subbayya v. Srishti Veerayya and Others [AIR 1969 AP 92] and Bashetti Bhagawantha Rao v. Nathiri Yellaiah [MANU/AP/1157/2001]. The finding in Ext.P10 that there was no violation on the part of the respondents/judgment debtors was also emphasised. Referring to Ext.P9 proceedings, learned counsel would point out that enough time was granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence regarding violation, which has not been done, wherefore, there is no bonafides in the Execution Petition filed. According to the learned counsel, the Original Petition is only to be dismissed.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae took this Court elaborately on all aspects pertaining to Order 21, Rule 32(5). The provision, as it originally stood, as also, to the situation after incorporation of OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 8 -
an explanation pursuant to amendment of the year 2002 and its impact was also addressed. Before addressing in detail the legal provisions canvassed by the learned Amicus, it was emphasised on facts that the title of the petitioner/plaintiff has been declared. Learned Amicus pertinently pointed out that a Commission to measure out the property has been taken out in the suit and the boundary line separating the plaintiff's property from the defendants' property was fixed, albeit there being no prayer for fixation of boundary sought for and granted. Learned Amicus Curiae invited the attention of this Court to the scope and sweep of the prohibitory injunction, which interdicts any interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. According to the learned Amicus, the said injunction is sufficient to take care of the present situation, since an obstruction by the judgment debtor to the construction of a compound OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 9 -
wall within the property of the petitioner/decree holder, especially when the Commissioner had clearly demarcated the boundary, amounts to interference with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property. Now, coming to Order 21, Rule 32(5), learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the expression "the act required to be done" was interpreted differently by the various High Courts of the country, most of the High Courts maintaining that the same applies only to a decree of mandatory injunction, whereas the Allahabad High Court took a different stand purporting to give a wider interpretation to the expression, "the act required to be done", so as to extend it to prohibitory injunctions as well. This dichotomy was noticed by the Law Commission and referred to, in its 144th report, the views of the various High Courts, to ultimately recommend that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 32(5) should be extended to prohibitory injunctions as well. It is accordingly that an explanation was added after OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 10 -
Order 21, Rule 32(5) by virtue of Act 22 of 2002, wherein it is provided that the expression "the act required to be done" covers prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. After the incorporation of the explanation, there cannot be any doubt that Order 21, Rule 32(5) applies to prohibitory injunctions as well, as is available in the present case, wherefore, the Execution Petition seeking enforcement of the prohibitory injunction alleging violation is quite maintainable. Learned Amicus Curiae invited the attention of this Court to the following decisions:
i) Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi [(2012) 4 SCC 307];
ii) Ajayakumar v. Damayanthi [2004 (2) KLT 48];
iii)Krishnan Namboodiri v. Unnikrishanan Namboodiri [2005 (3) KLT 556];
iv) Gopinathan Pillai V. v. Rajappan and Others [2011 (2) KHC 508];
v) Varghese v. T.K.Sivaraman [2011 (1) KHC 773];
vi) Kapoor Singh v. Om Prakash [AIR 2009 Punjab OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 11 -
and Haryana 188]; and
vii) Toran Singh v. Imrat Singh and Others [2012 SCC OnLine MP 3247].
8. To canvass the proposition that the remedy of a decree holder, in case of violation of a decree for prohibitory injunction, is only under Order 21, Rule 32, learned Amicus relied on Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) [See paragraph no.21 of the judgment].
9. The change undergone in the legal position pursuant to the introduction of the explanation have been dealt with by a learned Single Judge in Ajayakumar(supra), wherein also, a similar prohibitory injunction was granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. In that case, an Amin was sought to be deputed in the Execution Petition for the construction of fencing around the decree schedule property, after measuring property with the OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 12 -
assistance of a Taluk Surveyor. Learned Single Judge emphasised that the execution court has a duty to make every endeavour to ensure that the decree holder does secure the fruits of the decree. It was held that by virtue of the explanation incorporated, a decree for prohibitory injunction can also be enforced to a practicable extent, as decrees for mandatory injunction.
10. Krishnan Namboodiri(supra) was relied on by the learned Amicus to point out that Section 151 can also be invoked to enforce a decree for injunction and to pass an order directing delivery of property to the decree holder from the judgment debtor, who forcibly evicted the decree holder by violating the decree. Referring to paragraph no.19 of the judgment, it was pointed out that it is only just and proper to invoke the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a specific provision is lacking to meet a particular contingency to enforce a decree or OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 13 -
order of a court. The stand of the court below in refusing the relief for executing the decree on a technical ground, that a decree for prohibitory injunction cannot be enforced in the manner prayed for by the decree holder, was frowned upon by the learned Single Judge, as could be seen from paragraph no.20 of the judgment.
11. Gopinathan Pillai V.(supra) went one step further to hold that under Order 21, Rule 32, the executing court can assess, determine and fix compensation for the wrong done by the decree holder, which, in the facts of that case, was by cutting down trees and opening a path way. In paragraph no.11 of the judgment, it was emphasised that the remedy under Sub Rule 5 is in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the process mentioned in Sub Rules 1, 3 and 4. It was specifically found that, when an act is required to be done by the judgment debtor, and even if it is not specifically provided in the decree that in case OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 14 -
of failure, a particular sum would be payable to the judgment debtor, the executing court would be entitled to direct that the act required to done, be done at the cost of the judgment debtor and to recover the same from the judgment debtor. Learned Single Judge held that by a fiction, such expenses shall be treated to have been decreed, though there is no such specific provision in the decree. Learned Single Judge also found that the explanation incorporated to Order 21, Rule 32 would apply to Sub Rules 1 to 4, and not merely to Sub Rule 5.
12. Varghese(supra) was relied upon to point out that when the decree is one for fixation of boundary, the same would take within its sweep, the incidental rights of the owner to put up a fence or boundary wall on the boundary so fixed by the decree; and that the same does not require a separate decree, permitting putting up of a compound wall. It was held that for each and every OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 15 -
act of possession and ownership by the owner of the property, there need not be a decree.
13. Kapoor Singh(supra) was a case wherein, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the executing court can order mandatory injunction for restoration of possession of the decree holder, who was dispossessed in violation of the decree.
14. Toran Singh(supra) was a case, where there was a decree for declaration and permanent injunction, without there being any relief for recovery of possession. The contention urged was that the executing court cannot travel beyond the decree. The same was repelled, holding that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 32(5) and the inherent powers need to be exercised, when circumstances warrant the same, so as to prevent a situation of lawlessness, without relegating the decree holder to file another suit for possession. OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 16 -
15. To emphasise the rarely invoked power under Section 51(e) of the court, learned Amicus Curiae invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. State of Punjab and another [(2004) 12 SCC 673]. Relying upon Section 51(e), the Honourable Supreme Court held in paragraph no.96 that the residuary power allows a court to pass orders for enforcing a decree in a manner, which would give effect to it.
16. Learned Amicus Curiae, then invited the attention of this Court to the meaning of the expression "possession" as dealt with in Black's Law Dictionary (9th edition), to emphasise that possession includes a right, where one may exercise control over something, to the exclusion of all others.
17. P.Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon was relied to expatiate the scope of the word OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 17 -
'possession', as explained by Salmond on Jurisprudence. Though the legal meaning has to be ascertained from the context, the learned Amicus relied upon Ashan Devi v. Phulwasi Devi [(2003) 12 SCC 219] to emphasise that control over the property means, "power to exclude all others". This interpretation has been followed by the Honourable Supreme Court in T.Anjanappa and Others v. Somalingappa and another [(2006) 7 SCC 570], wherein referring to Pollock, it was held that possession of anything, of which one has apparent control, necessarily implies the power to exclude others.
18. Based on the above legal proposition, learned Amicus would opine that the title has been declared in the instant facts and the property is clearly identified by taking out a Survey Commission at the trial stage. Ext.C1 series is part of the record, wherefore, construction of a compound wall in terms of the depiction in OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 18 -
Ext.C2(a) survey plan can very well be carried out under the supervision of the executing court. It is the translation of the concept of excluding others, which is sought to be achieved by the construction of a compound wall, which right is ingrained in the right to enjoy and possess a property. Therefore, obstruction to such right certainly amounts to interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, as decreed in the suit. However, learned Amicus would make a caveat, while applying the above referred proposition to a given fact situation, which is to the effect that, while extending relief under Order 21, Rule 32(5) in case of prohibitory injunctions, the title and identity of the plaint schedule property should either be undisputed or should have been determined by the court and that the boundaries are clear, either by virtue of the commission report or otherwise. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, a Commission can be deputed at the execution stage OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 19 -
even, to ensure that the construction is being carried out within the identified boundary of the plaintiff/decree holder in the plaint schedule property, which course would only be in consonance with the powers under Order 26, Rule 32.
19. Awestruck by the pellucidity with which the law on the topic was unfurled before me by the learned Amicus, this Court can only hold that the impugned Ext.P10 order cannot be sustained in law, for the reason that the learned Munsiff failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with the court. This Court will straight away refer to Order 21, Rule 32(5), which is extracted here below:
"32(5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree-holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 20 -
as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree."
20. Two definite types of decrees are culled out under Sub Rule (5) of Order 21, Rule 32, so as to provide an additional remedy in the context of execution of such decrees. It is explicit from a reading of Order 21, Rule 32(5) that the said additional remedy can be in lieu of, or in addition to other processes provided under Sub Rules 1, 2 and 3. The catch words in Sub Rule 5 is "the act required to be done". The remedy contemplated under Sub Rule (5) is that, in addition to or in lieu of remedies under Sub Rules (1) to (3), the court may direct that the act required to be done, may be done, so far as practicable by the decree holder or some person appointed by the court, at the cost of the judgment debtor. The Sub Rule also provides for recovery of the expenses incurred for doing such act from the judgment debtor, deeming such OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 21 -
recovery of the amount to be included in the decree. For the Sub Rules to apply, the following preconditions have to be satisfied:
1) The decree should be one for specific performance of a contract or for an injunction.
2) There should be disobedience of such decree.
3) As per the decree, an act is required to be done by the decree holder.
Then, the court may,
1) direct such act to be done as far as by the decree holder or some other person appointed by the court.
2) ascertain the expenses for such act and to direct recovery of the same from the judgment debtor.
21. There was considerable dichotomy as regards the true purport and scope of Sub Rule (5). Majority of High Courts in the country took the OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 22 -
view that Sub Rule (5) applies only in cases, where the decree is one for mandatory injunction; and not in cases for prohibitory injunction. A few High Courts were of the opinion that Sub Rule (5) should be given an expansive interpretation, so as to bring within its fold decrees for prohibitory injunctions as well. The issue gained the attention of the Law Commission and in its 144th report, the Law Commission, after taking note of the above referred dichotomy, recommended as follows:
"8.1.12. Recommendation - Clarification is obviously needed on the point at issue. It is suggested that as a matter of legislative amendment, it is preferable to incorporate the wider view (though the majority of the High Courts have taken a contrary view) and to provide that the words "act required to be done" cover prohibitory (as well as mandatory) injunctions. This would also be in conformity with section 3(2), General Clauses Act, 1897 which provides that in all Central Acts, the word "act" includes illegal omissions. Besides this, on the merits, there is no justification why a decree-holder should be driven to a separate suit for getting relief in the nature OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 23 -
of enforcement of a decree which he must have obtained after considerable expenditure of time, labour and money."
22. Acting upon the recommendation, an explanation was added to Order 21, Rule 32(5), as follows:
"[Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "the act required to be done" covers prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions.]"
Thus, by virtue of the explanation, Sub Rule (5) of Order 21, Rule 32 was made applicable to prohibitory injunctions as well.
23. The decisions on the point and the context and the dictum laid down therein, had already been narrated while addressing the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae and hence not repeated. This Court is in complete agreement with law on the topic, as expatiated by the learned Amicus, including the Caveat referred in paragraph no.18 above.
OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 24 -
24. On the strength of the legal position as regards Order 21, Rule 32(5) as noted above, as also, on the basis of the dictum laid down in the various judicial pronouncements, this Court will straight away arrive at the conclusion that the learned Munsiff clearly erred in not invoking the powers under Sub Rule (5) of Order 21, Rule 32 and negating the decree holder's request to appoint a Commissioner, aided with a Surveyor, to supervise the construction of the compound wall. In arriving at such conclusion, this Court should also address the sweep, as also, the scope of a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from doing any thing interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. Let me employ the precise words in the decree in question, which is extracted here below:
"Defendants and men under them are restrained by decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property ..... .. ........ ......... and from OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 25 -
doing any act interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property."
[underlined by me for emphasis]
25. This takes us to the next question as regards the meaning of the term 'possession' and 'enjoyment'. The meaning and scope of the term 'possession' has also been addressed in detail by reference to Black's Law Dictionary, P.Ramanath Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ashan Devi(supra) and in T.Anjanappa (supra). It is clear from the above treatise, the meaning and legal character of the word 'possession'. The primary aspect to be taken note of is that the term possession assumes various shades and colour in law, thus, making it imperative to ascertain the meaning from the context in which it is applied. One essential feature to ascertain possession is the person's control over the property, which implies his power to exclude all others [see Ashan Devi(supra)]. It OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 26 -
can safely be held that possession constitutes a facet of ownership.
26. Now, coming to the facts at hand, the plaintiff's title over the plaint schedule property has been declared. Simultaneously, the defendants were restrained from doing any act interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. In consonance with the title declared and in exercise of the powers as the absolute owner of a property, the plaintiff is entitled to do several acts over the property, including the act of constructing a compound wall, as held in Varghese(supra). There need not be a decree enabling every such act. Once the title is declared in recognition of the paramount ownership of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff will become entitled to all concomitant incidents which necessarily flow from such ownership; and when there is a decree of OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 27 -
prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from doing anything interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff, here again the expression is so comprehensive, capable of taking within the sweep any and every action, which affronts the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff. Therefore, if the right to construct a compound wall is one such aspect flowing from the title declared in favour of the plaintiff, an action interfering with such right is certainly tabooed by the prohibitory injunction granted. The question as to whether a particular action, interferes with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff can only be ascertained in the peculiar facts of each case. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that there need not be a separate and specific decree enabling the plaintiff/ petitioner to put up a boundary wall in the plaint schedule property, once his title is declared, OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 28 -
which is followed by a decree for prohibitory injunction restraining interference with his rights and enjoyment. This is all the more so, when the property has been measured and the same is found to be clearly identified by virtue of the Commissioner's report and plaint.
27. In expansion of the point concerning the identity of the property, this Court notice that a Commission to measure out the property was taken in the suit; Ext.C2 is the Commission report and Ext.C2(a) is the survey plan. Based on the same, the learned Munsiff arrived at a specific finding that, "the plaint schedule property is well demarcated from adjacent property on all the four sides with defined boundary marks" [see in this regard issue no.1 in Ext.P3 judgment]. It is in consonance with Ext.C2(a) survey plan that the plaintiff/petitioner attempted to erect a compound wall alongside the eastern boundary, which was obstructed by the respondents/judgment debtors. OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 29 -
28. This Court finds little merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents/ judgment debtors claiming that the executing court found no action on the part of the judgment debtor violating the decree of injunction. This Court notice that there is no discussion at all in this regard, except a self-serving finding that the judgment debtors have not violated the decree. It seems that the learned Munsiff was more persuaded by the concept that the assistance sought for from the execution court is something beyond the scope of the decree. It appears that the enabling provision under Order 21, Rule 32(5) was not brought to the notice of the learned Munsiff at all, which resulted in the impugned Ext.P10 order, declining the application for issuance of a Commission to supervise the construction of the compound wall.
29. Resultantly, the impugned Ext.P10 order is set aside. Ext.P6 application is allowed and the rest OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 30 -
of the matter is relegated to the learned Munsiff for due execution of the decree in accordance with law.
30. Before parting, I should place on record my deep and profound appreciation to the learned Amicus, Adv.Jacob P.Alex, for the commendable service rendered by him in expositing the intricacies of the law on the topic.
This Original Petition is disposed of, as above.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww OP(C) No.2602 of 2023
- 31 -
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2602/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 13.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER PURSUANT TO THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.417/2012 IN O.S.NO.507/2009.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH EXT.P1 COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO. 507/2009. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2018 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA IN O.S. NO.507/2009.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 15.11.2018 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA IN O.S.NO.507/2009.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF E.P.NO.1/2022 IN O.S. NO.507/2009 DATED 28.01.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF E.A.NO.2/2022 IN E.P. NO.1/2022 IN O.S.NO.507/2009 DATED 10.02.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN E.P.NO.1/2022 IN O.S. NO.507/2009 DATED 04.08.2023 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN E.A.NO.2/2022 IN E.P. NO.1/2022 IN O.S.NO.507/2009 DATED 23.08.2023 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF CASE STATUS AND CASE HISTORY OF E.P.NO.1/2022 DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, VIZ., HTTPS://DISTRICTS.ECOURTS. GOV.IN/ EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 16.09.2023.