Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ALEMMA versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ALEMMA v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 1819 of 2001(N) [2007] RD-KL 13316 (18 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 1819 of 2001(N)

1. ALEMMA
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :18/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... O.P.No.1819 OF 2001 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 18th JULY, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Ext.P7 order of the Survey Superintendent rejecting an application submitted by the petitioners for making corrections in the re-survey plan is under challenge. The reason assigned in Ext.P7 is that a boundary dispute is subsisting between the parties.

2. Heard Sri.V.Rajendran Perumbavoor, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, counsel for the party- respondents.

3. It is submitted by both sides that a suit O.S.No.80 of 1998 seeking fixation of the disputed boundary is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Aluva. According to Mr.Dinesh R.Shenoy, the above suit itself will not be maintainable since the same is barred by res judicata in view of the judgment and decree in an earlier suit, O.S.No.15 of 1988 which was filed by the father of the present petitioners in respect of the suit property. Mr.Rajendran submits that the existence of a boundary dispute itself would have been justification for the Survey Superintendent to entertain the application and not for rejecting it.

4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the OP.N0.1819/01 Bar, I am of the view that it will suffice if it is clarified that Ext.P7 will be subject to the outcome of O.S.80 of 1998. It will be open to the party-respondents to pursue all the contentions which they have raised including the contention that the suit is barred by res judicata, in O.S.80 of 1998. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion about the maintainability of O.S.80 of 1998 or the merits of the claim in that suit. The Original Petition will stand disposed of directing that Ext.P7 will be subject to the outcome of O.S.80 of 1998. Once the judgment of the court is available, the Survey Superintendent will do the needful on the basis of an application to be submitted by the petitioners producing copy of the judgment. No costs.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl OP.N0.1819/01 OP.N0.1819/01


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.