The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Survey and Boundaries Act of 1094 to determine the ownership of land and the boundaries of the river, which influenced the court's decision to dismiss the suit.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the plaint property, the extent of which as mentioned in the plaint, is about 50 acres. The plaintiff is the lessee of a large tract of land lying within the Poonjar Edavagai and belonging to the Poovarani Devaswom. The Devaswom belongs to a Mutt, the head of which was the 9th defendant, who died subsequent to the suit and he was succeeded by the 13th defendant. At the time of the institution of the suit, the Poonjar Chief was the 11th defendant and after his death, he was succeeded by the additional 14th defendant. The 10th defendant is the Vanjipuzha Chief, whose Edavagai lands lie adjoining the Poonjar Edavagai. Defendants 1 and 2 were the sub-lessees of the plaintiff and they were said to be in possession of certain portions of the plaint property. After the institution of the suit, the plaintiff had compromised his disputes with the 2nd defendant and so, the 2nd defendant had no further interest in the plaint property. The 15th defendant is the State, impleaded in the case at a later stage on account of the contention of some of the parties that a portion of the plaint property was Sirkar poramboke.

2. The plaintiff stated that the plaint property was a portion of his leasehold consisting of Ulayanad Desom, which he had taken from the 9th defendant's Mutt for 101 years. This Desom lies within the Poonjar Edavagai. The Vanjipuzha Edavagai lies to the south and east of the property. This property is separated from the Peruvanthanam Muri belonging to the 10th defendant, the Vanjipuzha Chief, by a stream called the Pullaka River. A portion of the plaint property was in the possession of the plaintiff, while the remaining portion was with defendants 1 and 2. Since the Pullaka river was the boundary, the plaintiff was entitled to possession of all the lands to the right side of the middle line of the river. He was also entitled to the river bank and bed on the right side. No survey had been made of the Peruvanthanam Muri. There was also no survey or settlement in Poonjar, though some preliminary steps were taken in 1070 to survey the Poonjar Pakuthy. The same had to be given up because of the dispute between the Poonjar Koickal and the State as to the costs of the survey operations. By that incomplete survey, Poonjar Edavagai was delimited to the right side of the Pullaka river and based on this, defendants 1 to 8 were raising the contention that the plaint property was portion of the Peruvanthanam Muri. That was the contention raised by the 2nd defendant in O.S. 230 of 1114 of the Meenachil Munsiff's Court. A tree, which was in the plaint property and which had been cut down by the plaintiff, was attempted to be removed by the 5th defendant. On the plaintiff's complaint, a case was registered by the Mundakayam Police and the timber was entrusted on Munnamsthanam. The 1st defendant had planted rubber on portions of the plaint property given on lease under the plaintiff. There was no case for the defendants that the plaint property was portion of the Peruvanthanam Muri. The 10th defendant had no such case at that time. There was also no basis for the contention that the plaint property was Sirkar poramboke. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit praying for the declaration of his title to and possession of the plaint property. He also prayed that portions of the plaint property, which would be found in the possession of any of the defendants, might be ordered to be delivered over to him. There is also a paragraph added at the end of the plaint that, on the application of the plaintiff, the Sirkar had been impleaded in the case in order to enable the Court to set aside the proceedings by which portions of the plaint property had been surveyed as poramboke.

3. Defendants 1, 5,10,14 and 15 had filed written statements. The 1st defendant stated that the property set forth in the plaint A schedule was not clearly descri