C.P.PAUL Vs. MARY VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above OP is filed challenging the order in R.P No.13/2017 and IA No.2957 of 2017 in IA No.1898 of 2012 in OS No.846/2010 of the Subordinate Judge's Court Ernakulam. The review petition is filed against a final decree order.

(2.) The main contention urged by the petitioner is that he filed a suit for partition and a compromise decree had been passed by which he was allotted 1/2 share over the plaint-schedule property and defendants 1, 2 and 3 were allotted 1/6th share each. During the final decree proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner was deputed. He prepared a plan with the help of a Taluk Surveyor. Ext.P3 is the survey plan and the property had been measured and demarcated in metes and bounds. The property was divided into 4 items A, B, C, D and E. A, B and C schedule items were to be allotted to defendants 1 to 3 and the D schedule to the plaintiff. E schedule was considered as a common pathway. The defendants sought for demarcation of the property and for a separate allotment and therefore the Court deputed the Amin to demarcate the said property and to deliver the same in favour of defendants and accordingly defendants got delivery of A, B and C schedule properties. Later on, the plaintiff sought for delivery of his item of property. At that time, the Advocate Commissioner along with the Village Officer has measured the property. Ext.P8 is the report. It was noticed that the side measurements in the D plot on the southern side as per the plan is 24.3 and the western side is 25.9. When those measurements were taken, it was noticed that a portion of the building of the hotel and portion of the chimney of the main building is found to be included in the western portion of D plot. Apparently, when the Advocate Commissioner visited the property along with the Amin and Village Officer and measurements of D plot was taken, it was found that there is some discrepancy and accordingly D plot could not be given delivery. It is at that stage petitioner sought for a review inter alia contending that though he was entitled for 1/2 share of the property and the Advocate Commissioner had specifically stated in Ext.P3 that his entitlement was for 2.73 Ares, as matters stand now, a portion of the said area falls outside the boundary and is in a different survey number.

(3.) The Court below found that the review petition is not maintainable as there is no error apparent on the face of record.