Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vasantha Vs. Vasavakumar

Vasantha vs Vasavakumar

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 17, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1131029

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Commercial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Commercial

Key legal issue
Commercial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vasantha

Respondent

Vasavakumar

Excerpt

.....os no8662005 before the ist additional munsiff court, neyyattinkara p10:_ true copy of the deposition of the commissioner p11:- true copy of the deposition of the surveyor p12:- true copy of the common order ia ia 5782 of2013& ia386312 in os no8662005(c/w os90205 dtd512/13 of the ist additional munsiff court, neyyattinkara respondent's exhibits:- nil /true copy/ p.a. to judge dcs v.chitambaresh,j.------------------------------- o.p.(c) no. 486 of 2014 ----------------------------------------- dated this the 17th day of february, 2014 judgment the court below has by the order impugned set aside the report and plan of the advocate commissioner in a suit for injunction. there is also a cross suit by the defendants for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property. the satisfaction of the court below about the report and plan of the advocate commissioner cannot be tested in proceedings under article 227 of the constitution of india.2. the court below is however obliged to depute another advocate commissioner to file a fresh report and plan about the property in dispute. either parties are at liberty to file a work memo to the advocate commissioner who shall expedite the proceedings in the circumstances of the case. the court below will issue appropriate directions to the advocate commissioner and shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously. the original petition is disposed of. v.chitambaresh judge dcs

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY,THE17H DAY OF FEBRUARY201428TH MAGHA, 1935 OP(C).No. 486 of 2014 (O) ------------------------------------ OS8662005 of I ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA OS9022005 of I ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA .................................................. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ 1. VASANTHA D/O.GOURI, VETTUVILA VEEDU, AVADUTHURA DESOM VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM2 SOBHA D/O.VASANTHA, VETTUVILA VEEDU, AVADUTHURA DESOM VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM3 ASOKAN S/O.KARUNAKARAN, VETTUVILA VEEDU, AVADUTHURA DESOM VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SRI.V.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- VASAVAKUMAR S/O.SREEKHANAM, PALACHALKONATHU THERIVILA VEEDU ANTHIYOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA-695001 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1702-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS OP(C).No. 486 of 2014 (O) ---------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

IN OP NO13130OF 1996 DTD65/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DT D5/8/2005 IN WA NO 1452 OF2005IN OP NO131301996 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO866OF 2005 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEORE THE IST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DTD1711/2005 P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO866OF 2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST ADDITIONAL MUNISIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO9022005 FILED BY THE2D PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT NEYYATTINKAA DTD312/2005 P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO9022005 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DTD41/2006 P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE COMMISSIONER ADVOCATE IN OS8662005 & OS9022005 DTD62/2012 BEFORE THE IST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN FILED BY THE COMMISSIONER ADVOCATE IN OS8662005 & OS9022005 DTD62/2012 BEFORE THE IST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE PLAN AND REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OS NO8662005 BEFORE THE IST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA P10:_ TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE COMMISSIONER P11:- TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE SURVEYOR P12:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER

IA IA 5782 OF2013& IA386312 IN OS NO8662005(C/W OS90205 DTD512/13 OF THE IST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

------------------------------- O.P.(C) No. 486 of 2014 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Court below has by the order impugned set aside the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner in a suit for injunction. There is also a cross suit by the defendants for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property. The satisfaction of the Court below about the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner cannot be tested in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The Court below is however obliged to depute another Advocate Commissioner to file a fresh report and plan about the property in dispute. Either parties are at liberty to file a work memo to the Advocate Commissioner who shall expedite the proceedings in the circumstances of the case. The Court below will issue appropriate directions to the Advocate Commissioner and shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously. The Original Petition is disposed of. V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial