This second appeal raises some important substantial questions of law. After carefully perusing the appeal memorandum and the records and on hearing the learned counsel for the contesting parties, the substantial questions of law reframed are thus:

1. Whether a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession and limitation is maintainable?

2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below erred in not holding that the provisions contained in the Panchayath Act, 1960 and the Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 prevented a plea of adverse possession against a Grama Panchayath?

3. Nuisance by trespass being a continuous wrong, can a person claim adverse possession over a

4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a decree for injunction could have been granted against the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayath, the true owner of the property in question?

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. K. G. Balasubramanian for the appellant, Sri. Sadanantha Prabhu for the 1st respondent and Sri Sheejo Chacko for the 2nd respondent.

3. 2nd defendant in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the respondents. Contentions raised in the plaint in short are as follows: The plaint schedule property belongs to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. No other person has any right, interest or possession over the property. The extent of the property, after measuring it out by a Commissioner, is found to be 6. 016 cents. The plaintiff had reduced the property into his possession about 42 years before institution of the suit and put up boundaries. Initially, he had put up a thatched hut in the property. Thereafter, he constructed a tiled house. He is residing in the house with his family. He dug a well too in the property about 25 years ago. That apart, he has improved the property by planting various fruit bearing trees. In recognition of his possessory title over the property, the 2nd respondent (1st defendant) Grama Panchayath had assigned a door number to his house. He has been remitting building tax in respect of the house. From 27. 07. 1981 onwards, he enjoys electric supply to his house. A ration card is also issued to the plaintiff in his house address. The plaintiff has prescribed title over the property by open, peaceful, long and unobstructed exclusive possession for more than the statutory period. A public road passes through the southern side of the plaint schedule property and the plaint schedule property does not form part of the said road. When the defendants tried to meddle with his enjoyment of the property, the plaintiff approached the trial court for a declaration that he has prescribed title by adverse possession and limitation and also for a prohibitory injunction against the 1st defendant Grama Panchayath from interfering with his possession.

4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement opposing the action. According to the Grama Panchayath, the plaintiff claims right over a road puramboke which is vested in the Panchayath under Section 169 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 (in short, the Panchayath Raj Act). The claim of the plaintiff that he has been in possession of the property for 42 years is totally false. He encroached upon the Panchayath puramboke comprised in Survey Nos. 137/5, 138/9 and 140/1 of Elinjipra Village and unauthorisedly occupied the same. The Grama Panchayath admitted that he had constructed a house and dug a well and also planted certain fruit bearing trees. According to the Grama Panchayath, all of them are of recent origin. The Grama Panchayath admitted that it had assigned a number to the building constructed by the plaintiff. It is the case that the plaintiff had assured the Grama Panchayath that he would vacate the premises as and when required by them. According to the Grama Panchayath, the plaintiff never possessed the property asserting a hostile title. In fact, he is in possession over the property acknowledgi