D SUNDARESAN Vs. K C SASIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P9 orders of the Munsiff's Court, Pala by which the applications for appointment of a Commission were dismissed. The submission of the learned counsel before this Court is that the suit is one for mandatory and for permanent prohibitory injunction. The facts are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner constructed a residential house in six cents of property, which was purchased by him by three different documents. His case is that while he was purchasing a portion of the property by a sale deed of 1999 itself, there was a motorable road having width of 12 feet, starting from PalaThodupuzha public road and passing through various properties, reaching up to south-western side of their properties. He was using the said road from the date of purchase. His grievance is that now there is obstruction created by the defendants therein, who were the property owners on the adjacent side of the above said pathway. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner purchased the property from second respondent and his mother. The other respondents are the brothers of the second respondent.

(3.) When this original petition came up for hearing, I perused the impugned order. It can be seen that earlier a Commissioner was appointed and a rough sketch was also prepared and produced before the court below. The second application for appointing a Commissioner with a qualified surveyor is filed in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Raveendran Vs. Lohithakshan, 2017 2 KerLT 865. I perused the said decision. The facts of the said case are different from this case and the dictum laid down will not be applicable in this case. The evidence in this case has to be appreciated with respect to the pleadings of this case.