The court determines the necessity of adhering to survey records in partition proceedings, emphasizing accurate property identification.

JUDGMENT

This original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P8 order of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom in I.A.No.1699 of 2018 in O.S.No.152 of 2012. The petitioners are plaintiffs in a suit for partition, which has been decreed. In the final decree proceedings a Commission was taken out. The Commissioner was directed to identify the properties scheduled as Items 1 and 2 in accordance with the survey records and the descriptions shown in decree schedules and boundaries. Ext.P5 is the report submitted by the Commissioner. The report says that the property has been identified on the basis of the description in the decree schedule alone and not in accordance with the survey records. As such, the said report cannot be the basis for passing a final decree. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners had filed I.A.No.1699 of 2018 for remitting the report to the Commissioner and to call for a report as required. The said application has been rejected by the court below by Ext.P8 order. The order says that the allegation of the petitioners is that the Commissioner and Surveyor did not measure the property properly. However, it is seen from the Commission report itself that no Surveyor had been engaged and the Commissioner had identified the property. The order hence is on a factual premise and cannot be sustained.

In the result, this original petition is allowed.

Ext.P8 is set aside. I.A.No.1699 of 2018 stands allowed. The court below shall remit the report of the Commissioner and call for a report. It is made clear the present report is not set aside. The proceedings may continue after calling for such a report.