Case Summary
George filed a petition challenging the commission report and plan submitted in an ongoing suit regarding property boundaries. The defendants, including Varghese and Sucy Varghese, contended that the application was not maintainable and a repetition of earlier grievances.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The application by George was dismissed, as the court found no merit in challenging the commission report. The evidence presented did not justify any further remittal for re-measurement of the properties.
Key Reasoning:
The commission report and plan were properly prepared in accordance with the respective title deeds of both parties, showing no bias towards the defendant.
The commission report and plan were properly prepared in accordance with the respective title deeds of both parties, showing no bias towards the defendant.
Why Defendant Won:
The commission report and plan were properly prepared in accordance with the respective title deeds of both parties, showing no bias towards the defendant.
The commission report and plan were properly prepared in accordance with the respective title deeds of both parties, showing no bias towards the defendant.
Supporting Evidence
It is evident that the Commissioner and Surveyor have shown in the plan the properties of both parties in accordance with their respective prior title deeds.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition stands dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- George
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Varghese(Late)
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sucy Varghese
- Party Age
- 73
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vinodha Varghese Isaac
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vijay Varghese
- Party Age
- 41
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T.R. Ramanadhan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- T.V. Eldho
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The plaintiff's application for reconsideration of the Commission report was not allowed.
Evidence:
Having regard to the sequence of events, including the earlier remittal of the report and the opportunity already afforded to the plaintiff to raise objections, I find no merit in the present application.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court reviewed the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner and Surveyor to evaluate the measurement of the properties as per the title deeds.
Reference:
Ext.C1 to C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.
Case Code Year
2012