Kerala High Court
Meenakshi vs Wats Mole K. John on 6 December, 2018
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
OP(C).No. 2661 of 2017
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN I.A./DEFENDANTS IN SUIT:
1 MEENAKSHI, AGED 74 YEARS,
D/O.AYYAPPAN, KONTHIYARUKUDIYIL HOUSE,
KOTHAMANGALAM KARA AND VILLAGE - 686 691.
2 RUKMINI, AGED 64 YEARS,
D/O.AYYAPPAN, KONTHIYARUKUDIYIL HOUSE,
KOTHAMANGALAM KARA AND VILLAGE - 686 691.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SANJAY
SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN I.A./PLAINTIFF :
WATS MOLE K. JOHN,
D/O GOODWIN K.JOSEPH,
KARIKKATTU HOUSE, PARATHODE,
KONNATHADI VILLAGE,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK - 685 563.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2018, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 2661 of 2017
2
JUDGMENT
The dismissal of an application seeking remission of the commissioner's report is under challenge.
2. The suit is one for declaration of title and other reliefs. In spite of service of notice on the respondents, there is no appearance.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners-defendants that the property covered by gift deed No.42/76 was not properly identified by the commissioner. It is also alleged that the report and plan are not in tune with the earlier order passed on I.A.No.3045/2015. The property covered under the gift deed is to be identified and demarcated first, before the identification of the other properties, is the submission.
4. I notice that no evidence was taken on the application, before passing the impugned order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be afforded an OP(C).No. 2661 of 2017 3 opportunity to substantiate their contentions before final orders are passing on the application.
5. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 11.07.2017 in I.A.No.1246/2017 is set aside. The court below shall afford opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence on the application. The court below shall pass fresh orders thereon based on the materials so available.
The original petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE AMV/06/12/2018 OP(C).No. 2661 of 2017 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.42/1976 DATED 06.011.1976 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.5360/1984 DATED 29.11.84 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.6616/1995 DATED 22-07-1995 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.6617/1995 DATED 22.07.1995 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.3045/2015 DATED 16-11-2015 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.3045/2015 IN O.S.459/2010 DATED 26-11-2015 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.2141/2015 IN O.S.459/2010 DATED 26-11-2015 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH DATED 24-03-2017 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF I.A.1246/2017 IN O.S.NO.459/2010 TO REMIT THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 07.04.2017 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1246/2017 IN O.S.459/2010 DATED 11.7.2017.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE