The court emphasized the necessity for accurate property measurements and proper adjudication of land rights, allowing for reassessment based on filed objections.

The Original petition is filed by the petitioner by challenging the order passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Thalassery in I.A.No.9/2024 in O.S.No.96/2012.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was defendant No. 5 in the suit in O.S.No. 96/2012, wherein the respondent, who was the plaintiff, filed a suit for perpetual injunction. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the mother and siblings of the petitioner/5th defendant, who got impleaded himself as a supplemental defendant, claiming the right over the suit schedule property. A commissioner was appointed by the court on the request of the plaintiff, and the commissioner submitted the report before the court and the petitioner found the report is not correct and it is not giving the proper figure and measurement and lie of the property. Therefore, an objection was filed for evicting the commissioners before the court and a new commissioner was appointed for a fresh assessment, which came to be dismissed, and hence the petitioner before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner and family members are defendants claiming that they are staying in the property and there is a Pilakandy Madapura. The plaintiff’s forefathers are also said to have worked as managers and are now claiming the right over the property and the defendants actually constructed the building and are staying in the Madappura area while performing the poojas, etc. The commissioner's report was filed, and the very 3rd plaintiff filed an objection before the commission report, stating that the report of the commissioner is not correct regarding measurement and lies. The same was ignored by the Trial court and the application was dismissed, mainly on the ground that there is a delay in filing the application, etc. And the defendants are also staying in the property, which is not stated by the commissioner therefore it is necessary to remit back to the commissioner the report for appointing a fresh report, and hence, they prayed for allowing this petition.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent seriously objected to the petition, contending that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 did not file any objection they are the same family members. Only the present petitioner, the supplemental defendant, filed an objection and filed an application for remission, which is not required. The Trial court considering the application mainly held there is no right over the property and the commissioner prepared the sketch in respect of the property mentioned in the document and the plaintiff No. 3 filed only an objection but did not file any application for remitting back the commissioner report. Such being the case, the matter is one of the oldest matters that came for trial but because of the application filed by the present petitioner, it was delayed. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard the arguments and perused the records.

7. The points arises from my consideration is:-

1. Whether the order under challenge call for interference?

8. On perusal of the records, the respondent filed a suit for only a permanent prohibitory injunction as against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Subsequently, the present petitioner impleaded himself as the 5th defendant, who is also the son of the 1st defendant. The 1^st defendant is the mother, and the other defendants are siblings who are also contesting the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the defendants family claiming the right over the property as they are doing the pooja. Defendants 1 to 3 also filed written statements, and the 5th defendant also filed a written statement claiming the right over the pro