Thomas P. Joseph, J.

1. Heard. Admit.

2. The following substantial question of law is framed for a decision:

Whether the courts below are correct in entering a finding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief of declaration sought in the light of the constitution of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (for short, "the Tribunal") and the bar under Section 563 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act")?

3. Respondents appear through counsel.

4. In view of the substantial question of law framed for a decision which does not require calling for the entire records and a copy of the plaint and the written statement filed by the 2nd respondent are given to me for perusal, as agreed by the learned counsel on both sides records are not called for, for disposal of this appeal.

5. Plaintiffs are the appellants. They sued the respondents-defendants in the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kollam in O.S. No.133 of 2000 for a declaration of title and possession they claimed over plaint A and B schedules, for injunction to restrain the 2nd respondent from demolishing the compound wall constructed on the eastern side of the suit property and for other reliefs.

6. It is the case of the appellants that they got title over 25 cents as per document Nos.2609 of 1962, 2984 of 1962, 2443 of 1967 and 1244 of 1985 (Exts.A1 to A4) and that out of the said 25 cents, they surrendered half a cent to the 2nd respondent-Corporation for construction of a drain on the eastern side. The rest of property belonging to and in the possession of the appellants -24.5 cents is the suit property. Appellants produced Exts.A5 and A6 in proof of payment of revenue for the said 24.5 cents. Their further case is that the 1st respondent has 17 cents of property on the north of the suit property, he encroached into 19 cents of Kayal puramboke and at his influence the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 06.12.1999 (copy of which is Ext.A7) directing the appellants to demolish the compound wall they constructed towards eastern portion of the suit property. Appellants contended that the compound wall was constructed in the property about 30 years back. They claimed title over the suit property, declaration of that title and possession and consequential injunction.

7. The 1st respondent contended that the appellants have encroached into the puramboke land and constructed the compound wall without permission from the 2nd respondent. As per the resurvey, a strip of puramboke land was found on the eastern side of property of the 1st respondent and that according to him, was surrendered to the 2nd respondent.

8. The 2nd respondent contended that as per the resurvey plan, property in resurvey 21 and 22 of block No.14 is in the possession of the appellants, appellants submitted a plan for construction of a compound wall but before granting sanction, they started with construction encroaching into the puramboke land on eastern side of the registered holding of the appellants. The construction is unauthorized and hence a notice as aforesaid was issued to the appellants. It is also contended that the Act gives ample power to the 2nd respondent to evict the encroachers and that the 2nd respondent has statutory right in the matter which cannot be interfered with. It is contended that the suit itself is not maintainable.

9. The trial court though after recording evidence held that the suit is not maintainable in view of Sec.563 of the Act, refused to enter a finding on the other issues raised in the case and dismissed the suit. Appellants challenged that judgment and decree in the Additional Sub Court, Kollam in A.S. No.23 of 2006. Learned Sub Judge concurred with the finding of the trial court that the civil court has no jurisdiction, made certain findings as to the right claimed by the appellants and confirmed the dismissal of the suit. Hence this Second Appeal.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that finding