Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PADMINI, W/O.LATE VASUDEVAN PILLAI versus SIVARAMAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PADMINI, W/O.LATE VASUDEVAN PILLAI v. SIVARAMAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR - WP(C) No. 16535 of 2007(R) [2007] RD-KL 11159 (25 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16535 of 2007(R)

1. PADMINI, W/O.LATE VASUDEVAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SIVARAMAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU

For Respondent :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :25/06/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C).No. 16535 OF 2007 R

Dated this the 25th June, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed to set aside Ext.P11 order passed by the learned Munsiff in I.A.2436/06 in O.S.185/04. The case is one for declaration of a path way and it is claimed by the plaintiff as easement of necessity. It is resisted by the defendants. I am informed that two commissioners had visited the property thrice and they had submitted Exts.P3,P5 and P7 report before the court. The present petition para 3 in Ext.P9 there is a recital that as per the documents there is a path way of 20 links width adjacent to the plaintiff's property and therefore if it is found out the case of the plaintiff will be shown to be false. It is true that the learned Munsiff has not written a considered order though he stated that for the reasons stated herein the prayer is allowed. Unfortunately no reasons are stated. Of course, this is a belated application but it is not a new case because defendant had produced document along with the written statement. So, it is desirable that the commissioner inspects the property in the light of those documents and in case of necessity get the assistance of the surveyor and submit a detailed plan. Since Shri. Suresh Kumar has visited the property twice and WPC 16535/07 2 it is only desirable that he be appointed as the commissioner to submit fresh plan and report as requested by the defendants. I make it clear that the petition as well as the counter statement does not give the points to be noted by the Commissioner and therefore both the plaintiff and defendant are permitted to file work memo before the commissioner so that the commissioner can answer it precisely and clearly with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor. Since there is laches on the part of the defendant to move for the remission at an early stage, I direct that irrespective of the result of the suit, the defendant is bound to bear the expenses of the commissioner as well as for the surveyor. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.