DAVAKARAN Vs. DAVID LIVINGSTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P4 order passed by the Additional Munsiff Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'the trial court') is under challenge in this original petition.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, and the 1st respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.545/1998 on the file of the trial court. The suit was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs claim that the plaint schedule property belongs to them and is in their possession. In the written statement and the additional written statement, the defendants raised rival title and possession over the plaint schedule property. It was contended that, he purchased a larger extent of property from persons who had been allotted plots as per the final decree in a suit for partition; that he obtained possession over the property in execution of that final decree by delivery through court and that the plaint schedule property was a part of the property delivered over to him in execution of the decree.

(3.) The parties went on trial. After the oral evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was over, the defendant was examined on commission as DW1. He filed proof-affidavit in lieu of chief- examination before the commissioner and marked Exts.B1 to B14. The counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the marking of the documents tendered as Exts.B2, B8, B9 and B10. The objections were recorded by the commissioner, and they were reserved to be decided by the court at the stage of hearing as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 4 of Order XVIII of CPC. It is evident from Ext.P3 testimony of DW1.