Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
RUGMANI – Appellant
Versus
K. HARIDAS – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1901 OF 2025 | OS NO.582 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.HARISHANKAR, SMT.AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL
For the Respondents: SHRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
A comprehensive Commissioner report is essential to verify property claims in boundary fixation disputes for judicial execution to be effective.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 94 and 151 - Order setting aside Munsiff Court order - Petitioner seeks to set aside the order for remitting back the Commissioner report without considering document verification - Trial Court's oversight in identifying property ownership and excess claims was held erroneous. (Paras 2-5)
(B) Property Law - Boundary fixation and property disputes - Importance of accurate Commissioner reports for executing decrees in property suits emphasized by court requirements for proper verification before passing decrees. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contests a Munsiff Court order concerning property related to previous decrees and the necessity of submitting clear Commissioner reports for accurate boundary fixation. The property being disputed amounts to overlapping claims by both parties.
Findings of Court:
The petition is allowed, and the Munsiff Court order is set aside, directing a fresh report by the Commissioner to verify property based on supporting documents.
Issues: The main issues include the necessity for the Commissioner to accurately reflect property rights in executing legal documents and suits related to boundary fixation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rules that a comprehensive report from the Commissioner, verifying both parties' claims, is essential for fair adjudication and execution of decrees related to property. This is crucial for ensuring that the executing decree is viable and enforceable.
Result: Petition allowed, order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to munsiff court order regarding property disputes. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. court's directive for accurate reporting in property dispute execution. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2025 This petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant for setting aside the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Palakkad on I.A No. 2183/2025 in O.S 582/2013 dated 26.07.2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the third respondent. Though notice has been served on respondents
1 and 2, there is no appearance for the said respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the plaintiff filed a suit against respondent no. 3 for executing the document, based upon the previous decree obtained in O.S No.582/2013. However during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff obtained the commissioner report and subsequently after the appearance of the defendants, another commission report filed by the commissioner. The petitioner raised objection for remitting back the commission report mainly on the ground that the Commissioner not verified the documents of the defendant and it is contented that the suit property involved in belongs to his father. The father assigned the property to the plaintiff and subsequently the plaintiff filed a suit in OS 53/1996 and obtained the decree in a suit. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner’s father sold a portion of property to the plaintiff. However after succeeding the suit the petitioner constrained to sell the property to the plaintiff. Subsequently property measuring 4.25 cents and 9.05 cents. Subsequently the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S no.582/2013 for fixation of boundary and that suit was decreed, the execution petition for fixation of boundary and getting the documents executed. But a separate suit has filed against the petitioner and others. Therefore in order to pass the decree it is necessary to appoint the Commissioner and obtain the report in respect of the property excess claimed by the plaintiff which is 3.5 cents more than the property sold by the petitioner to the plaintiff and how the 20 cents of land 4.25 and 9.05 cents sold, the remaining property would be nearly 7 cents.
Whereas the plaintiff claims excess of 3.05 cents, therefore it is necessary to identify the properties in accordance with the documents of the parties, especially documents of the petitioner herein, but the same was not done. Therefore the Commissioner report ought to be remit back and sending the Commissioner further visiting spot and identify the property as per the documents of the parties and submit report. But the trial Court without considering the same has stated the documents are not required to identify the properties is not correct. Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that there is a pathway passes in between the properties. That was identified by the Commissioner. Therefore there is no need to remit back the Commissioner report. Hence prayer for dismiss the petition.
4. On perusing the records the petitioner made out a case for setting aside the order under challenge. On careful perusal of the learned argument addressed by the learned counsel and the counsel for the 3rd respondent, here it is observed that to sell the property belongs to the petitioner’s family as in 20 cents, and the property said to be assigned to the petitioner and some disputes arises between himself and his father, a suit came to file by him for declaration of title in OS No.53/1996 and he has obtained the decree, and during the pendency of the said suit his father said to be sold a portion of property to the plaintiff herein and thereafter obtained the decree that the plaintiff has tried to sell some of the property to the plaintiff which is said to be measuring 4.25 and 9.05 cents of land. Subsequently, the petitioner to the respondent No.2, i.e, the plaintiff file a suit 582/2013 for fixation of boundary though he said to be obtained a decree but he can’t execute t
