Kerala High Court
S.Abdul Rasheed vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2019
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941
RSA.No.881 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.08.2019 IN AS 20/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLLAM FILED
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2019 IN OS 596/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
-----
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 11/PLAINTIFFS:
1 S.ABDUL RASHEED,
AGED 74 YEARS,
S/O.LATE SULAIMANKUNJU, SOUDA MANZIL, KERALAPURAM,
PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 504.
2 S.SAINUDEEN,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O.LATE SULAIMANKUNJU, ZAYAAN, MCRA 124,
MANAYILKULANGARA, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
3 S.NAZARUDEEN,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O.LATE SULAIMANKUNJU, SOHAL MANZIL, KERALAPURAM,
CHANDANATHOPPU POST, KOLLAM, PIN-691 014.
4 RAMLA HUSSAIN,
AGED 65 YEARS,
D/O.LATE SULAIMANKUNJU, CHALUMPATTU KIZHAKKATHIL,
THONNALLOOR P.O., PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN-689 501.
5 S.NAZUMUDEEN,
AGED 60 YEARS,
THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KERALAPURAM,
VELLIMON P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER SHANHAR, THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
KOVILMUKKU, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 504.
RSA.No.881 OF 2019 -2-
6 RAZIA SIDHIQ,
AGED 57 YEARS,
D/O.LATE SULAIMANKUNJU, SONA MANZIL, PADA NORTH,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN-690 518.
7 HAJIRA BEEGUM,
AGED 69 YEARS,
W/O.LATE SHAMSUDEEN, THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
KOVILMUKKU, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 504.
8 DILSHAD.S.,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O.LATE SHAMSUDEEN, THADATHIL VEEDU, KERALAPURAM,
VELLIMON P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 511.
9 SHEEJA SHEFEEQUE,
AGED 49 YEARS,
D/O.LATE SHAMSUDEEN, AISHA MANZIL, KUMARAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-690 548.
10 SHANHAR,
AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O.LATE SHAMSUDEEN, THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
KOVILMUKKU, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 504.
11 SHYLA.S.,
AGED 42 YEARS,
D/O.LATE SHAMSUDEEN, THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
KOVILMUKKU, PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM, PIN-691 504.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SMT.MEENA.A.
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
SMT.M.R.MINI
SRI.M.DEVESH
SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH
SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND 12TH RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM,
PIN-691 001.
2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NH 744, THEVALLY, KOLLAM, PIN-691 009.
RSA.No.881 OF 2019 -3-
3 SHIHAS.S.,
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O.LATE SHAMSUDEEN, THENGUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
KOVILMUKKU, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 504.
R1-2 BY SRI.P.M.SATHEESH,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.12.2019, THE COURT ON 12.12.2019, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
RSA No.881 of 2019
==================
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2019
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of prescriptive title and prohibitory injunction against trespass, are the appellants. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The lower appellate court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit.
2. The plaint 'A' schedule property has an extent of 12 Ares and 15 Sq. metres equivalent to 30 cents situated in Kottankara village. The plaint 'B' schedule is a building (saw mill) situated in the plaint 'A' schedule property. The plaint 'A' schedule property is bounded on the east by the National Highway, on the south by Railway and PWD puramboke, on the west by Railway line and on the North by a Village road. According to the plaintiffs, 15 cents of property from out of the plaint schedule was in the possession of Moideen Kunju, the father-in-law of Sulaiman Kunju and the RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 2 :-
maternal grand father of the plaintiffs even prior to the year 1936. In the year 1950, Moideen Kunju transferred possession of the property to the plaintiff's father Sulaiman Kunju. Along with the property he took possession of the adjoining 15 cents of puramboke, thus making the total extent in his possession at 30 cents. He put up boundary fence on all the four sides of the property. A saw mill was erected in the property. The property has been in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and predecessor. The reason for the suit is Ext.A14 notice dated 20.06.2017 issued by the second defendant demanding vacant possession, alleging encroachment into puramboke. The suit is filed for declaration of title over the plaint 'B' schedule building and for declaration of prescriptive title over the plaint 'A' schedule property. There is a further relief for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property.
3. The defendants denied the claim of RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 3 :-
prescriptive title and alleged that the plaintiffs are mere squatters in the plaint schedule property. It was contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, Kerala Highway Protection Act and also the National Highways Act. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The trial court answered the question of maintainability in favour of the plaintiff. On appreciation of the evidence, it was found that the plaintiffs, in continuation of their predecessors, have prescribed title over the plaint 'A' schedule property. There was practically no dispute regarding the title over the plaint 'B' schedule building. Accordingly the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. On appeal by the defendants, the first appellate court interfered with the decree and held against the claim of prescriptive title and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs are in appeal.
5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.T.Krishnanunni on behalf of the appellants- RSA No.881 of 2019
:- 4 :- plaintiffs and the learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Renjith Thampan on behalf of the
respondents-defendants on the following substantial questions of law:-
(a) Did not the first appellate court err in holding the suit to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, in the absence of any plea?
(b) In the absence of any challenge regarding identity of the plaint schedule property, did not the lower appellate court err in holding that the plaint schedule property is not identified?
(c) Did not the lower appellate court omit or fail to consider the legal effect of the documentary evidence adduced by the appellants?
6. As regards the challenge against the maintainability of the suit, the trial court found that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The contention urged by the learned Additional Advocate General before this Court challenging the maintainability of the suit is with reference to Section 41 of the Highway Protection Act which reads thus:-
RSA No.881 of 2019
:- 5 :-
"41. Protection of action taken in good faith- No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Government or any authority or any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under or in pursuance of this Act or rules made thereunder."
7. As noticed by the trial court, the preamble of the Highway Protection Act declares that the Act is meant for protection and development of highways and to prevent encroachment thereon. Evidently the Act relates to protection and preservation of highways and to abate encroachments. Section 41 of the Act only bars initiation of legal proceedings against any action taken in relation thereto. The present suit is one for declaration of title claiming that the title over the property vests in the plaintiffs. The Act does not contain any provision for adjudication of the said claim. The plea of bar of jurisdiction of the civil court was rightly negatived by the trial court.
8. It is seen that the lower appellate court did not interfere with the finding of the trial RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 6 :-
court regarding the maintainability of the suit. However, the lower appellate court has proceeded to hold that on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property is national highway and on the western side is the property of the railway and without the Central Government on the array of parties, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Pertinently no plea of non- joinder was urged by the defendants in the written statement. There was no issue framed on non- joinder. As was rightly noticed by the trial court, Order I Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates objections as to non-joinder or mis- joinder of parties to be raised at the earliest opportunity and before the settlement of issues, and any such objection if not taken shall be deemed to have been waived. A declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act will bind only the defendants in the suit and not on strangers. That apart, it is to be noticed that, the cause of action for the institution of the suit arose by the issuance of Ext.A14 notice by the Assistant RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 7 :-
Executive Engineer (National Highway) who has been impleaded as the second defendant in the suit. Therefore, I concur with the finding of the trial court that the suit cannot be held to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The substantial question of law no.(a) is thus answered in favour of the appellants.
9. The lower appellate court has held that the suit should fail since the plaint schedule property has not been identified by taking out a survey commission. I am unable to concur with the said finding for reasons more than one. There is no plea challenging identity of the plaint schedule property. No issue was raised regarding identity of the property. Further, Ext.C1 report of the commissioner reveal that the property is identifiable. Therefore, substantial question of law no.(b) is answered in favour of the appellants.
10. Incidentally it is also to be noticed that, though the lower appellate court has entered a finding that sufficient pleadings regarding the ingredients of adverse possession do not find a RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 8 :-
place in the plaint, on a whole reading of the plaint I am unable to agree with the same.
11. Coming to the merits of the plaint claim, the question for determination is, whether the plaintiffs and their predecessors have prescribed title over the plaint schedule property. The classical requirements of adverse possession are "nec vi, nec clam and nec precario" i.e. neither by force, secretly or on permission. In other words, the requirements are, adequacy in continuity, adequacy in publicity, and adverse to the competitor in denial of title and his knowledge, and for the statutory period [Secretary of State of India v. Debendra Lal Khan [1933] L.R. 61 I.S. 78, Radhamoni Debi v. Collector of Khulna [1900] L.R. 2 IndAp 136, P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314, Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others v. Manjit Kaur and others (2019 (8) SCC 729)]. Knowledge of the owner does not mean the actual putting him on notice. Visible notorious acts which would, on exercise of due diligence, put him on notice or knowledge regarding the possession is RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 9 :-
sufficient. When the land involved is Government land, the degree of proof regarding the ingredients to constitute adverse possession, especially regarding the acts which would amount to putting the Government on notice, is much high when compared to that of ordinary citizens. The reason for such insistence has been explained by the Apex Court in various decisions.
12. In Hanumaiah and another v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka Revenue Department and Ors. [2010 (5) SCC 203] it was observed thus:-
"..... Government properties are spread over the entire state and it is not always possible for the government to protect or safeguard its properties from encroachments. Many a time, its own officers who are expected to protect its properties and maintain proper records, either due to negligence or collusion, create entries in records to help private parties, to lay claim of ownership or possession against the government. Any loss of government property is ultimately the loss to the community. Courts owe a duty to be vigilant to ensure that public property is not converted into RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 10 :-
private property by unscrupulous elements."
13. In State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (Dead) through his LRs [2000 (5) SCC 652], the Apex Court observed thus:-
"So far as the question of perfection of title by adverse possession and that too in respect of public property is concerned, the question requires to be considered more seriously and effectively for the reason that it ultimately involves destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and conferring upon a third party encroacher title where he had none. ....."
14. In Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and another [2010 (2) SCC 461] it was observed thus:-
"..... In this context, it is necessary to remember that it is well neigh impossible for the State and its instrumentalities including the local authorities to keep every day vigilance/watch over vast tracts of open land owned by them or of which they are the public trustees. No amount of vigil can stop encroachments and unauthorised occupation of RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 11 :-
public land by unscrupulous elements, who act like vultures to grab such land, raise illegal constructions and, at times, succeeded in manipulating the State apparatus for getting their occupation/possession and construction regularized. It is our considered view that where an encroacher, illegal occupant or land grabber of public property raises a plea that he has perfected title by adverse possession, the Court is duty bound to act with greater seriousness, care and circumspection. Any laxity in this regard may result in destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and give upper hand to the encroachers, unauthorised occupants or land grabbers."
15. In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and Others [2004 (10) SCC 779], the Apex Court observed thus:-
"..... A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession."
16. In Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others v. RSA No.881 of 2019
:- 12 :-
Manjit Kaur and others [2019 (8) SCC 729], the Apex Court observed thus:-
"When we consider the law of adverse possession as has developed vis-a-vis to property dedicated to public use, courts have been loath to confer the right by adverse possession. There are instances when such properties are encroached upon and then a plea of adverse possession is raised. In such cases, on the land reserved for public utility, it is desirable that rights should not accrue. The law of adverse possession may cause harsh consequences, hence, we are constrained to observe that it would be advisable that concerning such properties dedicated to public cause, it is made clear in the statute of limitation that no rights can accrue by adverse possession."
17. With the above in mind, I proceed to consider the evidence available in the suit and its legal import and significance. The fact that plaint 'B' schedule building was erected by the predecessor of the plaintiffs for running saw mill cannot be disputed. Ext.A1 is the proceedings of the Joint Director, Department of Industries and RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 13 :-
Commerce, dated 24.03.1959 evidencing that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was sanctioned a loan under the SSI Scheme for his saw mill unit. Exts.A2 and A4 documents dated 09.01.1962 evidences Sale Tax registration for the unit. OS 944/1971 before the Munsiff's Court, Kollam, was a suit filed by Sulaiman Kunju, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in favour of his brother-in-law Meera Sahib when there was an attempt on the latter's part to take possession of the property. As is evidenced by Ext.A7, the suit was decreed on 12.03.1975. The non production of the plaint and judgment in the said suit though was frowned upon by the lower appellate court as 'suppression of materials', I do not find any reason or attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to conceal the said documents from the court. It is not even suggested to the plaintiffs as to in which manner the production of the said documents would fatally affect them. Exts.X1 series and Ext.A29 documents coupled with the evidence of PW2 the Assistant Executive Engineer of Kerala State RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 14 :-
Electricity Board and PW5 Assistant Engineer of Kerala State Electricity Board indicate grant of electric connection to the plaint 'B' schedule building as early as in the year 1957. Exts.A8 to A10 documents evidences grant of licence by the plaintiff or their predecessor in favour of strangers regarding conduct of saw mill. These materials are sufficient enough to find the hostile possession by the plaintiffs or their predecessor, for the statutory period.
18. That a saw mill was functioning in the plaint schedule property at least from the year 1957 till the date of filing the suit, is established by the documents above referred to. The fact that subsequent to the trespass, plaint 'B' schedule building was erected, business was being conducted therein, sales tax registration was obtained and financial assistance was given by the Government for the saw mill unit are acts sufficient enough to put the Government on notice regarding the possession. The nature of the acts of possession exercised by the plaintiffs and RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 15 :-
predecessors cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be precarious or to be in such a manner as to conceal it from the true owner. The erecting of plaint 'B' schedule saw mill, the conduct of saw mill business at least since the year 1957, the act of availing loan from the Industries Department, the obtaining of sales tax registration etc. with respect to the business in the plaint schedule property could not be looked upon as anything less than notorious acts sufficient enough to bring to the notice of the Government regarding hostile possession of the property by the plaintiffs and their predecessor. The possession of the property continuously, against the interest of the owner and without any attempt of concealment by exercising notorious acts of possession, is evident from the materials. However, these materials have not been considered by the lower appellate court. The failure to consider the legal consequence of the documentary evidence available in the suit gives rise to a substantial question of law within the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 16 :-
Procedure. The contention that, there has been failure on the part of the lower appellate court to consider the material evidence, has to be upheld. Substantial question of law no.(c) is answered in favour of appellants.
19. Though an attempt was made to dispute the identity of the property in which the saw mill is situated, as was noticed by the trial court, there is no case for any of the parties that the plaintiffs or their predecessor run a saw mill at any place other than the plaint schedule property. What is sought to be projected is that, the saw mill is functioning at 'Perinad,' which is the residential address of plaintiffs' predecessor. However, the challenge on the place of functioning of the saw mill cannot stand in view of the contents in paragraph 1 of Ext.A1 proceedings which reads thus:-
"Sanction is accorded for the payment of a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as a loan to Sri.Mytheen Kunju Sulaiman Kunju, Thenguvila Puthen Veedu, Edavattom, Perunad, RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 17 :-
Kundara, P.O., Quilon District, subject to the rules for the grant of loans to Small Scale Industries sanctioned in G.O. No.Rt.201, Industries (B) Department, dated 16-04-1958 for starting Saw Mill Industry at Keralapuram."
20. It shows that the place of residence of Sulaiman Kunju the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the place of functioning of the saw mill are different and also that it is functioning in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the challenge on the said ground fails.
21. Having found that the elements of adverse possession have been satisfied by the plaintiffs and their predecessor, the next question that arises is as to whether the plaintiffs have established adverse possession regarding the entire plaint schedule property as claimed by them. While in the case of a true owner of the property, proof of possession of portion of a property would be, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, sufficient to find possession of the whole, in the case of a RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 18 :-
trespasser who claims adverse possession, finding on possession will be confined to the portion proved to be in actual possession. In Raja Rajgan Maharaja Jagatjit Singh v. Raja Partab Bahadur Singh [AIR 1942 PC 47], the Privy Council held as follows:-
"... it is well established that adverse possession against an existing title must be actual and cannot be constructive."
Therefore, the theory of constructive possession cannot be drawn in the case of a trespasser. In other words, in the case of an adverse possessor the theory, "possession of part is possession of whole" does not apply. Trespasser's adverse possession is confined to the area proved to be in possession of.
22. As noticed supra, the plaint 'A' schedule property has an extent of 30 cents. It appears that going by the defendant's case, the saw mill unit viz. the plaint 'B' schedule building, occupies an extent of only 4 cents. It has to be considered as RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 19 :-
to whether the plaintiffs have prescribed title over the entire 30 cents or only with regard to the area occupied by the plaint 'B' schedule building.
23. Noticeably, all the documents produced by the plaintiffs relate to the building and the business conducted in the plaint 'B' schedule building. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint 'A' schedule property having an extent of 30 cents is bounded on all sides by fence. To substantiate that even in the year 1971 the plaint 'A' schedule property was enclosed by fence, the plaintiffs have produced Ext.A13 commissioner's report prepared in Ext.A7 suit viz. OS 944/1971 between Sulaiman Kunju and his brother-in-law, referred to supra. Ext.A13 is the Commissioner's report in a suit which is not inter parties. Though the Commissioner who prepared Ext.A13 report has been examined as PW3, it is seen that except for marking the report, no details have been brought out. Anyhow, even going by Ext.A13 commissioner's report it is evident that the property which was the subject matter therein was lying more or less in a triangular shape with the RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 20 :-
saw mill building situated thereon. But going by Ext.C1 Commissioner's Report in the present suit, the plaint schedule property is more or less in a rectangular shape. As to when was the further trespass, making the property in the shape of a rectangular plot, is not pleaded nor is it in evidence. Going by Ext.C1 Commissioner's Report, except the area covered by the plaint 'B' schedule building, the remaining property is lying as a jungle land. The Commissioner was not even able to enter those portions of the property because of the thick jungle growth. That indicates against exercise of acts of possession. Ext.C1 report does not mention about the existence of any fence on the western side. Though it mentions about the fence on the other portions, the age of the fence is not mentioned, nor is it brought out by examining the Commissioner. Suffice to notice that, on the materials it cannot be concretely held that the entire plaint schedule property was being possessed and enjoyed by the plaintiffs and their predecessors absolutely, satisfying the ingredients RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 21 :-
of adverse possession, for the statutory period of 30 years. As noticed first above, in the absence of concrete evidence, the plea of adverse possession raised against the Government is not liable to be upheld and further, adverse possession is to be confined to the portion of the property actually adversely possessed. In view thereof, the claim of adverse possession with regard to the entire plaint schedule property is not liable to be upheld.
However, as noticed supra, the plaintiffs have established their prescriptive title over the area of land where the plaint 'B' schedule building is situated and the land appurtenant thereto necessary for conducting the saw mill. However, the said area has not been demarcated or located. I deem it appropriate to pass a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs have prescribed title over the land occupied by the plaint 'B' schedule building and the land appurtenant thereto barely necessary for the conduct of the saw mill, and further relegating the parties to the trial court for identification and demarcation of the said portion RSA No.881 of 2019 :- 22 :-
of the property and to pass a final decree accordingly.
24. In the result, the second appeal is allowed in part. The decree and judgment of the lower appellate court is set aside. A preliminary decree is passed, declaring the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint 'B' schedule building and their prescriptive title over the land wherein the plaint 'B' schedule building is situated with the land appurtenant thereto barely necessary for the functioning of the saw mill. The trial court shall issue a commission assisted by a surveyor to have the plaint 'B' schedule with the appurtenant land as indicated supra, identified and located, and pass a final decree with respect to the same.
Parties to appear before the trial court on 13.01.2020. No costs.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. to Judge