GANGADHARAN Vs. KALYANIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order passed in a petition filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.265/1997 of Sub Court, Palakkad, in which a preliminary decree was passed. Final decree application was filed as I.A.No.58/2005. Advocate Commissioner was deputed for dividing the properties in metes and bounds, taking note of the respective contentions of the parties. Advocate Commissioner has filed Ext.P2 report. After hearing the respective parties, final decree has been passed.

(2.) As far as the petitioner/1st defendant is concerned, he is allotted the extent of property described in B schedule of Ext.C1, the lie, extent and measurement of which are shown in Plan No.2 attached to Ext.C1 as his share. As far as the 4th respondent/2nd defendant is concerned, he is allotted the extent of property described in C schedule of Ext.C1, the lie, extent and measurement of which are shown in Plan No.3 attached to Ext.C1 as his share. It is pointed that B schedule of Ext.C1 does not match with the Plan No.2 of Ext.C1 and similarly, C schedule of Ext.C1 does not match with the Plan No.3 attached to Ext.C1.

(3.) In fact, the petitioner had approached this Court in an earlier proceeding to set aside the Advocate Commissioner's report. Ext.P5 is the order in the said proceedings. In Ext.P5, it is stated that the petitioner does not have any dispute regarding the allotment of shares made by the Advocate Commissioner and the challenge was only in respect of mesne profits and owelty. In the meantime, respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs noticed that there are some discrepancies in the Advocate Commissioner's report with reference to the shares allotted to defendants 1 and 2. Though they filed a petition for correction as Ext.P4, later it was withdrawn.