Sasikala Devi v. Taluk Surveyor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/14TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 10146 of 2015 (P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- SASIKALA DEVI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.JAGADESH, CHAROOR, KAITHA VADAKKUM MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHETTIKULANGARA.P.O, MAVELIKKARA.

BY ADVS.SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN RESPONDENTS:

------------------------

1. TALUK SURVEYOR, MAVELIKKARA-690101.

2. B.SASIKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.K.BHASKARAN, SASISADANAM, PELA.P.O, PELAMURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA-690106.

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

PJ

WP(C).No. 10146 of 2015 (P) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT EXT.P2 RE-WRITTEN COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE C.I,MAVELIKKARA EXT.P3 COPY OF THE CAVEAT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 20-03-2015 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.10146 of 2015 - P ====================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner seeks to agitate disputes, which are best to be left to be agitated before the Civil Court. The petitioner in the writ petition challenges Ext.P4 survey notice issued by the 1st respondent herein. Admittedly, the property belongs to the 2nd respondent as per Exts.R2(a) to R2(c) documents. The petitioner's own averments indicate that the subject property is a portion of her ancestral property; which justifies the notice issued to her as the adjacent property owner. However, the contention of the petitioner herein is that, the petitioner's husband had availed a hand loan and the documents executed by the petitioner were not intended to actually effect conveyance, but was only a security issued. The execution of the

W.P.(C) No.10146 of 2015 - P documents is admitted and no proceeding is initiated to set aside the same. The petitioner would have to agitate before the appropriate forum and cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or India.

Leaving open such remedy, the writ petition would stand dismissed.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A To Judge.