The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with procedural requirements, such as Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should not overshadow the substantive rights of the parties. Additionally, the court emphasized that the plea of adverse possession cannot be accepted when raised by the State or its instrumentalities.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction.

2. The plaint schedule property is an item of property measuring 70 cents comprises in Survey No.1968 of Madavoor Village. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property obtained by her mother Mariyam Beevi @ Chitty Ashya Ummal by virtue of Ext.A1 “Sthreedhana kuri” of the year 1092 ME was devolved on her and her brother Abdul Kareem on the death of their mother. It is also the case of the plaintiff that her brother Abdul Kareem released his rights over the property in her favour as per Ext.A2 release deed of the year 1986 and thus she became the absolute owner of the same. It is alleged in the plaint that on the basis of the permission granted by the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff namely late Kunju Pakky, the Police Department was using the building in the plaint schedule property as a police outpost on a licence arrangement. It is also alleged in the plaint that the defendants who have no right in the property are attempting to construct a building therein. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed in the suit a decree declaring her title and possession over plaint schedule property and a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from constructing any building therein or altering the nature of the property. An alternative relief for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property was also sought in the event the court finds that the defendants are in possession of the property.

3. The defendants contested the suit, contending inter alia, that the plaint schedule property does not belong to the mother of the plaintiff Mariyam Beevi as alleged by the plaintiff and that if it is found that the plaintiff has any right in the property, the same is lost by limitation. According to the defendants, the extent of the property available in Survey No. 1968 of Madavoor village is only 29 cents and the said property belonged to one Chitty Ashya Ummal and she had surrendered the same to the Government and it is on the basis of the surrender made by the owner of the property, the police outpost was established in the said property. It is explained in the written statement filed by the defendants that the tax of the property was being paid by one Katheermeeran Lebba, the son of the elder sister of Chitty Ayisha Ummal and that the tax was paid only up to 1966.

4. A replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement filed by the defendants. In the replication, it is stated, among others, that the mother of the plaintiff Mariam Beevi is also known as Chitty Ashya Ummal and she is the daughter of Chitty Ashya Ummal and that the plaint schedule property has never been surrendered to the Government.

5. At the trial, the plaintiff gave evidence as PW2. A witness was examined on her side as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 are the documents produced by the plaintiff. The Circle Inspector of Police, Venjaramoodu gave evidence on behalf of the defendants as DW1. Exts. D1 to D4 are the documents produced on the side of the defendants.

6. The trial court, on an elaborate consideration of the entire materials on record, found that the plaintiff has established title to the plaint schedule property and that she is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit. Nevertheless, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions contained in Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiff before this court in A.S No.636 of 1998. This Court took the view that as decades have passed since the institution of the suit, requirement of Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure has fallen into insignificance and the court below was not justified in non suiting the plaintiff for non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 80 of the Code. Despite the said finding, this Court had remitted the matter to the