Kerala High Court
Gopalan vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 28 July, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/19TH SRAVANA, 1938
RSA.No. 1396 of 2015 (G)
-------------------------
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT IN AS 21/2009 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
DATED 28-07-2010
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT IN OS 264/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,
PERUMBAVOOR DATED 29-09-2008
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
--------------------------------
1. GOPALAN, AGED 68
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PARACKAL
RESIDING AT KOLLERI, MOOLAYIL
PINERMUNDA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK
2. JIJI, AGED 40, S/O. GOPALAN
PARACKAL, KOLLERI, MOOLAYIL
PINERMUNDA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK
BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
----------------------------------
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
2. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PARAVUR GROUP
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PARAVUR - 683 513
*3. MAHADEVA TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, (DELETED)
KEERANKUZHI, PINERMUNDA KARA
KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
SUKUMARAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN
POOTHAPARAMBIL, PINERMUNDA KARA
KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE-683 565
*4. MAHADEVA TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, (DELETED)
KEERANKUZHI, PINERMUNDA KARA
KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
V.K.SAJEEVAN, KARIYAPPADATH HOUSE
PINERMUDA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE - 683 565
*[RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS
PER THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2016 IN IA 219/2016]
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
-------------------------------
R.S.A.No.1396 of 2015
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.264 of 2006 before the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. The suit is one for fixation of eastern boundary of the plaintiff's property and for prohibitory injunction. 2nd appellant claims property by virtue of Exts.A1 and A2 documents. Appellants had sold out certain properties before institution of the suit. But the entire property devolved on the 1st appellant as per Ext.A1 partition deed is shown in the plaint. The fact a portion of the property had been assigned to strangers was not mentioned in the plaint. What is remaining in the possession of the appellants is the property covered by Ext.A2. For this reason and also for the reason that there was no attempt to prove Ext.A6 plan and report, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the findings, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Perumbavoor as A.S.No.21 of 2009. Lower appellate court, after considering the entire R.S.A No.1396 of 2015 2 evidence, agreed with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the appellants are before this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board.
3. It is submitted by both sides that the matter was once placed before the Kerala Mediation Centre and due to non-availability of the Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board, mediation could not be fructified. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the light of the findings by the trial court, the appellant is prepared to take steps to fix the eastern boundary of the property with the concurrence of the officers of Travancore Devaswom Board. Learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board submitted that the Board has no objection in fixing a proper boundary separating the appellant's property and the Devaswom property. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that he may take recourse to the provisions under Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 or R.S.A No.1396 of 2015 3 any other provisions of law applicable in this matter. It goes without saying that the respondent Dewasom shall also co-operate in this matter and there shall be a quietus to the whole issue. It is made clear that the appellant shall bear the expenses for identification and fixation of boundary of the property, in case he opts to do so.
With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A. HARIPRASAD
JV JUDGE