State of Kerala and its officers are the appellants. They are the defendants in a suit filed by the original respondents seeking a declaration of title to the plaint schedule property and also for a perpetual injunction. In the first court, the plaintiffs lost. They went in appeal before the lower appellate court. The appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and the suit was decreed declaring title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and prohibiting the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, demolishing a building thereon and doing any act adversely affecting the title and possession of the plaintiffs.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the relevant pleadings are thus: Plaint schedule property along with a larger extent belonged to Karintholil Lucka Thomman. It was devolved on him by virtue of a registered partition deed of the year 1110 ME. He assigned the property to the 1st plaintiff (his daughter-in-law) in the year 1978 as per Ext.A1 document. Plaint schedule land is part of item No.3 in Ext.A1. 2nd plaintiff was the husband of 1st plaintiff. Plaintiffs possessed the property and they were cultivating the land. They had constructed buildings. Plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title were in possession of the property for more than 50 years. They were keeping possession of the property openly and without any objection from anyone and with an assertion that no one had any right over the property. Earlier, the property was registered as a paddy field. While the larger extent of the property was outstanding with the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, he surrendered a portion thereof, for forming a public road connecting Vazhakkulam and Kalloorkkad. On the formation of the road, the property was divided into two. Plaint schedule property fell on the western side of the public road. Hence, the entire property, situate on both the sides of the public road, belonged to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs and after Ext.A1, it belonged to the 1st plaintiff. Plaintiffs kept possession of the property and enjoyed the same in absolute right. When the property was outstanding with Lucka Thomman, he had constructed a shop building in the plaint schedule property. Further, an old laterite stone wall was also constructed to separate the plaint schedule property from the road lying on the eastern side. Tenor of the pleadings will show that the plaintiffs claimed ownership over the plaint schedule property and also contended that they and their predecessor were possessing the property in exclusion of all other persons. While so, the building constructed by Lucka Thomman became dilapidated due to old age and after spending Rs.20,000/- the plaintiffs reconstructed the building. Government officers, at the instigation of the plaintiffs' neighbour and antagonist, issued a notice under the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (in short, “L.C. Act”) alleging that the plaint schedule property is a puramboke and the plaintiffs had unauthorisedly trespassed into the property and constructed a building. It is the assertion of the plaintiffs that the Government have no right over the property as it belonged to them exclusively. If at all the Government had any right over the property, it was lost by adverse possession and limitation.

3. 3rd defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaint schedule property is included in survey No.179/4-4, having an extent of 15 cents and it is a road puramboke. The Assistant Engineer, Kalloorkkad, Public Works Department had issued a notice on 16.06.1987 stating that Lucka Thomman had trespassed upon the Government puramboke and unauthorisedly constructed a building. When survey was conducted, it was found that 5.5 cents of land in the possession of the plaintiffs and 1.5 cents in the possession of one Ayyappan Kunjan belonged to the Government. They have no right to enter the Government puramboke and make constructions thereon