Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. One fails to understand how the said principle is  applicable to the facts of the present case. Plaintiff and defendant traced title to the Will executed by Raman Nair. A careful reading of the plaint does not indicate that the plaintiff in fact claims title to the entire property. So for the other half she claims possessory title. Whether that claim is sustainable or not is a different question. The plaintiff has also stated in her plaint that there is no demarcating boundary between the two shares bequeathed by Raman Nair. Even accepting the argument advanced by the petitioner that the plea of the plaintiff regarding non execution of any document by Gopinathan was false and she was aware of the same and also that the petitioner had exercised actual possession over the property, still the suit could not be dismissed for the simple reason that she has averred that after the death of Raman Nair, Gopinathan had not taken possession of his share and there was no demarcating boundary between the two shares and the plot continued as a single common plot.