LAWS(KER)-2009-3-35

ELDHOSE Vs. YACOB

Decided On March 06, 2009
ELDHOSE Appellant
V/S
YACOB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S. No. 475 of 2006, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Muvattupuzha, against the respondents for specific performance of an agreement for sale, for fixation of boundaries and for permanent prohibitory injunction. The relief for specific performance relates to A schedule property, of which the first defendant was the owner. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant transferred that property to defendants 2 and 3. The plaint B schedule property lies adjacent to A schedule, which belongs to the plaintiff and the first defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that the second defendant cut open a way through the plaint B schedule property. The prayer for fixation of boundary was made after amending the plaint, in these circumstances.

(2.) An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect me property and to submit a report. The Taluk Surveyor who assisted the Commissioner stated that there was an acquisition of certain extent of land for Periyar Valley Irrigation Project (PVIP) canal from the eastern side of plaint B schedule property. The plaintiff states that the Taluk Surveyor stated that the measurement of the property can be made only with the help of the acquisition sketch prepared by the Revenue Authorities.

(3.) The petitioner filed I.A. No. 2,961 of 2008, praying for issuing a direction to the Tahsildar, Kothamangalam to produce before Court the acquisition sketch in respect of Survey No. 390/3 A/2 of Keerampara Village. This application was made by the petitioner to facilitate the inspection of the property by the Commissioner with the relevant acquisition sketch. The court below rejected the prayer in I.A. No. 2961 of 2008 by Ext. P8 order dated 4-9-2008, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The court below held that from 1-11-2007 onwards, the suit is being adjourned on several occasions for getting the Commissioner's report. It is also stated that the Commissioner has submitted that the relevant records were not made available by the plaintiff.