1. Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and consequential prohibitory injunction has come up in this second appeal by challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. Prominent prayer in the suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff and his mother had prescribed title over plaint A schedule property by adverse possession and limitation and the defendants (State of Kerala and the Assistant Engineer, PWD, National Highway Section) ceased to have any title to the same. Consequentially, a permanent prohibitory injunction decree restraining the defendants, their men or agents from trespassing into plaint A schedule property is also claimed.

2. In the trial court, the plaintiff succeeded and obtained a decree as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the State went in appeal before the lower appellate court where the plaintiff was defeated. The lower appellate court relying on a short note report published in a law journal of the decision in held that the plaintiff/appellant is precluded from filing a suit based on an ownership acquired by adverse possession and limitation. Further, the lower appellate court found that the suit is hit by the provisions under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (in short, “the Act of 1957”).

3. At the time of admission of the appeal, a learned single Judge framed the following substantial question of law and issued notice to the respondents:

Was the lower appellate court justified in law in reversing the decree of the trial court holding that the suit is not maintainable in view of the decision in Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchyat Village Sirthala (2013 (4) K.L.T. SN 28, Case 26) when going by Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act, after the expiry of the period of limitation, the owner is deemed to have lost his title?

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader, following substantial question of law is also framed:

Whether the suit is hit by the provisions in Sections 20 and 20A of the Act of 1957?

5. For a proper resolution of the dispute, it will be useful to have a look at the facts. Plaintiff's father C.K. Krishnan was owning an extent of ten cents of land comprised in R.S.No.431/6 of Nileshwar Village. He had constructed a tiled house thereon and was residing with his family. Later, Krishnan gifted the land in favour of his wife Paru Amma (mother of the appellant) as per Ext.A2 gift deed in the year 1943. The donee accepted the gift during the life time of the donor and took possession of the land. Plaint A schedule land is situate, as shown in Ext.C2 sketch, on the eastern and northern sides of the land covered by Ext.A2 gift deed. Appellant's mother Paru Amma encroached upon plaint A schedule land, which belonged to the State, in the year 1944 and reduced the same into her possession. It has been specifically pleaded that ever since 1944, the plaint A schedule land was in the possession of the appellant's mother. She had planted coconut trees, mango trees, drumstick trees, etc. about 60 years back. She had also constructed a compound wall made of laterite stones on the eastern and northern sides of plaint A schedule land annexing the same to Ext.A2 land. National Highway 17 runs through the north-eastern side of plaint A schedule land. Prior to its formation, there was a road known as West-Coast Road in existence, which was later developed as the National Highway.

6. Paru Amma and her children partitioned their lands in the year 1993 as per Ext.A3 registered partition deed. In that partition, plaint schedule item and land included in Ext.A2 were allotted to the share of the appellant. Thereafter the appellant started possessing and enjoying the land as an absolute owner thereof. It is his case that since plaint A schedule item was outstanding in the exclusive possession of his mother and later with himself, the defendants have lost their right by adverse possession and limitation. On 04.0