Point of Law : Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the trial court as well as the first appellate court and the supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct errors of the order or judgment of the lower courts or tribunals and the said exercise shall be to find out grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice or to meet an absolute illegality.

JUDGMENT :

Plaintiffs in O.S.No.144 of 2021 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, are the petitioners herein and they impugn order in C.M.A.No.61/2021 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Irinjalakuda, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondents herein are the defendants in the above Suit.

2. Heard Advocate T.N.Manoj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Denny Devassy, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Short facts: The plaintiffs herein filed the Original Suit O.S.No.144/2021 and sought for the relief of declaring their title over plaint ‘B' item properties 1 to 13, formerly part of old National Highway, by adverse possession and limitation. Further there is prayer in the Suit to separate the boundary between the plaint items ‘A' to ‘B' properties with ‘C' schedule property.

4. The respondents herein are Government and its officials, who are defendants in the Suit.

5. Along with the Suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.3/2021 seeking interim injunction restraining the respondents – the District Collector and State of Kerala, from forcefully evicting the plaintiffs from plaint ‘B' schedule items till the disposal of the Suit.

6. The Government filed objection and resisted the interim injunction application. Thereafter, as per order dated 11.10.2021, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the application. The plaintiffs filed CMA.61/2021 before the District Court, Thrissur and later made over to Additional District Court, Irinjalakuda. The learned Additional District Judge, after having re-appraised the evidence, also confirmed the order of the learned Munsiff. Thus the concurrent findings entered into by the trial court as well as the appellate court are under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the plaintiffs assert right of adverse possession over the plaint ‘B' schedule items and it was contended before the trial court specifically that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘B' schedule item for the last 40 years in continuation of their predecessors. Further, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when notice was issued under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, to evict the petitioners, they have filed an appeal and revision before the Superintendent, Survey and Land Records and the said appeal and revision are pending. The learned counsel urged that when the right of adverse possession is claimed, such a Suit is not barred even under Section 20 of the Land Conservancy Act and in support of this contention, the learned counsel heavily relied on a decision reported in [2018 (2) KLT 369], Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. & anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners made out a prima facie case with elements of irreparable injury and thus balance of convenience in this matter is also in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the courts below miserably failed to address the grievance of the petitioners and in such contingency this Court may address their grievance.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the defendants initiated proceedings to evict the petitioners, who unauthorisedly occupied portion of the old National Highway road passing through Chalakkudy in obedience to a judgment passed by this Court in W.P(C).No.29070/2019-G dated 09.12.2019 filed by one Babu Joseph Puthenangadi. In the said decision, this Court directed the respondents to continue the survey work in the area within the time stated in the statement and thereafter remove the encroachments, if any, found pursuant to the survey. He also argued that the new National Highway through Chalakkudi came into existence only before 10 years and till then the old National Highway was used. When the new road was formed