Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These appeals arise from common judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge, Kochi in A.S.Nos.57 and 62 of 2008 confirming dismissal of the suit and the decree on counter claim by the learned Principal Munsiff, Kochi in O.S.No.243 of 2007. It is not disputed that plaint A schedule property, five (5) cents as per assignment deed No.454 of 1977 belonged to and is in possession of appellant/plaintiff. Plaint B schedule property, 23 cents originally belonged to appellant's mother, Devaki Amma as per document No.81 of 1950 and on her death it devolved on appellant and his sister, Rajamani. The latter assigned her right to appellant/plaintiff as per document No.2257 of 2004. Thus appellant became the absolute owner in possession of plaint B schedule. Plaint B schedule is situated on the north of plaint A schedule and in between there is the disputed pathway. It is the case of appellant that on the west of plaint A schedule which is situated on the south of the disputed way respondents/defendants have 13 cents. According to the appellant, width of the disputed pathway is only 6 = links. He constructed compound wall on the west and east of the plaint B schedule (situated on the north of the disputed way) but his attempt to construct compound wall on the south of plaint B schedule (ie. on the north of the way) did not succeed since respondents obstructed it. Appellant prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction against respondents RSA Nos.313 & 316 of 2010 interfering with his right and possession over plaint A and B schedules. Respondents while resisting the suit made a counter claim. According to them width of the pathway is not 6 = links as pleaded by the appellant but it is two (2) metres and the said pathway does not form part of plaint A or B schedules belonging to the appellant. Appellant trespassed into the northern part of the pathway and constructed compound wall at some length. The pathway starts from public road on east and reached property of respondent No.4 on the extreme west. It is the contention of respondents that in the resurvey which was conducted in the year 1985 and finalised accordingly width of the disputed pathway is shown as two (2) metres. In the above circumstances respondents prayed for a decree for fixation of boundary of the pathway scheduled in the counter claim as per revenue records and for mandatory injunction to direct appellant to demolish and remove that part of the compound wall constructed by him trespassing into the said pathway. There was also a prayer for prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant, his agents or men from causing any obstruction whatsoever in the pathway and not to interfere with its free user. Appellant filed a replication to the counter claim denying the allegations in the written statement and counter claim and contending that at any rate area of the disputed pathway is only 1.5 cents. Learned Principal Munsiff came to the conclusion that even excluding the disputed pathway, appellant is in possession of more extent in plaint A and B schedules than what he is entitled as per the RSA Nos.313 & 316 of 2010 documents of title relied on by him. Learned Principal Munsiff found from the report of the Advocate Commissioner as well as other relevant documents that width of the disputed pathway is two metres and that there is encroachment into the northern portion of the said pathway at the instance of the appellant. Accordingly the suit was dismissed and the counter claim was allowed. First appellate court confirmed the findings, judgment and decree of learned Principal Munsiff. Hence these appeals. Learned counsel for appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law:

2. Facts which are not disputed are that plaint A schedule belonged to the appellant as per Ext.A3 and as per that assignment deed the extent of land belonging to the appellant is only five (5) cents. Over plaint B schedule appellant claims title and possession as per Exts.A1 and A2. Entitlement of appellant as RSA Nos.313 & 316 of 2010 per the said documents is only 23 cents. The above is clear from the plaint schedule also where extent of plaint A schedule is given as five (5) cents and that of plaint B schedule is given as 9.31 ares which is equivalent to 23.103 cents. Ext.B7 is the resurvey plan. The resurvey, it is not disputed was conducted in the year 1985. It is also not disputed that it has become final. No doubt, the mere fact of resurvey is not by itself sufficient to decide title. But when deciding the issue regarding title fact of resurvey is also relevant with other evidence. As per Ext.B3, copy of Basic Tax Register and Ext.B1, copy of resurvey plan plaint A schedule falls in R.S.No.58/4 while plaint B schedule falls in R.S. No.58/2. Property of respondent Nos.1 to 3 (ie. 13 cents on the west of plaint A schedule) comes in R.S.No.58/5. Property belonging to respondent No.4 on the extreme west (west of B schedule) falls in R.S.No.58/1. The disputed pathway comes in R.S.No.58/3 and as per Ext.B3, its width is two (2) metres extending east-west. Advocate Commissioner has shown the properties and the disputed pathway and pointed out that on the northern side of the pathway there is encroachment at the instance of appellant. At that portion appellant is shown to have constructed a compound wall. Ext.B8, photograph also reveals that there is trespass into the pathway. RSA Nos.313 & 316 of 2010