Case Summary
This case involves a petition by the 3rd defendant seeking to set aside a Commission report and plan related to a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and fixation of boundary. The petitioner's allegations center on irregularities in the Commission's measurements and reporting.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the Commission report was unsatisfactory and allowed the application to set it aside, ordering a fresh Commission for accurate measurement and identification of properties.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The Commission report did not satisfactorily address the issues in dispute.
The Commission report did not satisfactorily address the issues in dispute.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The Commission report did not satisfactorily address the issues in dispute.
The Commission report did not satisfactorily address the issues in dispute.
Supporting Evidence
The only point that arise for consideration is:- Whether the petition is available?.... The issue in the suit principally revolves around the fixation of boundary and identification of properties as per the deeds. Therefore, accuracy and clarity of measurement are essential for a just adjudication.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result:- The Commission report and plan submitted earlier are set aside. A fresh Commission shall be issued to the same Commissioner/Senior Surveyor (or another competent person, if necessary) with specific directions to: Measure and locate the properties strictly as per Sale Deed No. 4350/1998, Partition Deed No. 4812/2006, and Deed No. 31/1997 wherever applicable.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Gopalakrishnan @ Balakrishnan
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sukumari
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sreejith
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sreeja
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sathidevi
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Prathapachandran
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sheelakumari
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Lalithambika
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- G Govindan Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- George Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P T Geevarghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Praju K Paul
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Nezil Muhammed
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The commission report and plan submitted earlier are set aside and a fresh commission shall be issued.
Evidence:
The present Commission report and plan do not satisfactorily answer the issues in dispute and require reconsideration.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court evaluated the commission report submitted in O.S. No.188/2019.
Reference:
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court considered the survey plan related to the commission report.
Reference:
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
The petitioner alleged that the commission report failed to measure properties based on this sale deed.
Reference:
Sale Deed No. 4350/1998
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
The petitioner contended that the commission report did not adhere to this partition deed.
Reference:
Partition Deed No. 4812/2006
Case Classification
Case Type
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Gopalakrishnan @ Balakrishnan et al vs Sathidevi et al regarding declaration, recovery of possession and fixation of boundary.
Case Code Year
Case between Gopalakrishnan @ Balakrishnan et al vs Sathidevi et al regarding declaration, recovery of possession and fixation of boundary.