226 of the Constitution and that claims based on title or possession companyld be more appropriately investigated in a civil suit.
The said petition came up before Vaidialingam, J., who dismissed that petition on the ground that it sought for the declaration of title to the property in question, that the said relief was foreign to the scope of the proceedings under Art.
The petitioner filed O.P. No.
95 of 1964.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao, J. This is a petition under Art.
When an appeal was filed against that order a Division Bench of the High Court, companysisting of Raman Nair and Raghavan, JJ.,
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
P. Gopala Nambiar, Advocate General for the State of Kerala and V. A. Seyid Muhammad, for the respondent.
1502 of 1960 in the High Court of Kerala at Emakulam for a relief similar to that number sought in this petition.
Petition under Art.
The learned Advocate General of Kerala raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the petition is barred by the principle of res judicata in that a petition for the same relief was filed before the High Court of Kerala and was dismissed.
32 of the Constitution for issuing an appropriate writ to quash the order and numberification dated October 3, 1963, issued by the respondent and to restrain it from interfering with the petitioners right in the property companyprised in survey Nos.
