JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein, who is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.503/2011 pending before the Principal Munsiff Court, Nedumangad has filed this Original Petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Order in I.A.No.4020/2016 dated

14.11.2016 in the above suit, is under challenge in this Original Petition.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Precisely, the 3rd defendant, who purchased properties from the defendants, when got impleaded in the party array, after filing written statement in the year 2014, filed by the present petitioner for appointing a Survey Commission to measure out the details of the plaint schedule property.

5. The learned Munsiff dismissed the same holding that defendants 3 and 4 not filed any objection in the Commission Report already filed. It was held further that there is no necessity to measure the properties again based on the re-survey plan.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner/3rd defendant urged appointment of a Commission as sought for, it is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that, earlier, as on 05.12.2013, an exhaustive commission report and plan filed before the trial court and the same are sufficient to decide the dispute in between the parties. He also submitted that even defendants 1 and 2 or the additional defendants not filed any objection to the report, so far.

7. In order to ascertain the veracity of the Commission Report submitted to be filed on 15.12.2013, records of the court below have been called for. On verification, it appears that as on 31.08.2011, a local Commission Report with the rough sketch were filed and, subsequently, the Survey Commission was appointed and the said Commissioner filed report on 05.12.2013, showing the nature and lay of the entire properties based on the title deed description. As per the petition on hand, a measurement on the basis of a re-survey plan is the prayer. It is the settled law that tax receipts or revenue records shall not confer title to any body, though the same merely raises presumption as to possession supported by other convincing evidence.

8. In view of the matter, there is no necessity to get another Commission Report and Surveyor's plan. Therefore, the order impugned is perfectly in order since the same does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or arbitrariness.

Accordingly, this Original Petition stands dismissed.

It appears that the suit is of the year

2011 directed to be disposed of, by the Apex as well as this Court, repeatedly. In this context, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that a direction may be given to the trial court to dispose of the suit at the earliest.

Though the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the said plea, having noticed the nature of the suit as one under the five year old category, I direct the learned Munsiff to dispose of the case, on or before 31.07.2022.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE WW APPENDIX OF OP(C) 3/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.503/2011. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2347/2011 OF VAMANAPURAM SRO.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 22-02-2013.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY I.A.NO.4020/2016.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14-11-2016 IN I.A.

NO.4020/2016 IN O.S.NO.503/2011 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD.