Case Summary
The case involves a petition by the plaintiffs to set aside a commission report. The defendants oppose this, stating that the plaintiffs are attempting to delay the proceedings.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application to examine the Advocate commissioner and surveyor prior to commencing the plaintiff's evidence.
Key Reasoning:
The court found no serious discrepancies in the commission report and emphasized that evidence should proceed accordingly.
The court found no serious discrepancies in the commission report and emphasized that evidence should proceed accordingly.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found no serious discrepancies in the commission report and emphasized that evidence should proceed accordingly.
The court found no serious discrepancies in the commission report and emphasized that evidence should proceed accordingly.
Supporting Evidence
I find no serious discrepancies and shortcomings in the same.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the IA stands dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Anilkumar
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Daniyel Vincent
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shabu Navaz. A
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Alice Vincent.A
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vijayakumaran Nair
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ushakumari
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajendran Nair
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Commission report and plan filed on 17/03/2025, objections filed on 19/06/2025.
Defendants Documents
Statement of objection filed by the defendants.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Rajaprathap. S.J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Balachandran Kulasekharam
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The petitioners sought to examine the Advocate Commissioner and surveyor before the plaintiff's evidence.
Evidence:
Hence I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners to examine Advocate commissioner and surveyor firstly before commencement of plaintiff's evidence.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court reviewed and addressed objections related to the commission report and plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
null
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner was considered by the court in conjunction with the commission report and the pleadings of the parties.
Reference:
null
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The details of the pathway mentioned in the sale deed were referenced in the context of the commission report.
Reference:
document no.1509/1983
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced regarding the description and measurements of the pathway.
Reference:
document No.3380/1979
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Oral evidence
Relevance:
The court indicated that evidence could be taken from both parties regarding the commission report and plan.
Reference:
null
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2020