JUDGMENT :

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 r/w Order XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the C.P.C.’ hereinafter) against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.114/2016, dated 27.2.2023 on the files of the District Court, Palakkad, arose out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.852/1999, dated 27.2.2016 on the files of the Additional Munsiff Court, Palakkad.

2. The appellants herein are defendants 1 to 5 and supplemental defendant No.7. Respondents are supplemental defendant No.6 and legal heirs of the original plaintiff.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' for convenience.

5. As per order, dated 1.6.2023, my predecessor admitted this appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:

Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that Ext.A1 purchase certificate cannot be challenged, placing reliance on Section 72K(2) of the KLR Act, if it be shown on evidence that mandatory proceedings in terms of KLR Act and Rules are not complied in the matter of issuance of Ext.A1?

Whether the Courts below are right in not considering the legal impact of the purchase certificate issued in SM.No.497/1976 of Land Tribunal No.2, Palakkad as discernible from Ext.X1 and Ext.X1(a)?

6. The original plaintiff Narayanan filed suit for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property, having an extent of 15 cents on the strength of title, for which patta obtained in his favour from the Land Tribunal. According to the plaintiff, defendants encroached upon the plaint schedule property and took possession of the same. Though a lawyer notice was sent, seeking possession of the plaint schedule property, the defendants sent a reply to the notice, raising untenable contentions.

7. The defendants entered appearance and filed joint written statement. The title claimed by the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property was denied. The encroachment, as alleged in the plaint, also was denied and identification of the property also was disputed. According to the defendants, no property covered by the patta relied on by the plaintiff is in existence.

8. Initially, the suit was dismissed, against which, appeal was filed and the appellate court remanded the matter for identifying the plaint schedule property and to dispose of the case afresh, in accordance with law. Against which, F.A.O.No.183/2010 was filed by the plaintiff before this Court and the same also was dismissed as per judgment, dated 13.10.2014.

9. After remand, the trial court addressed the matter in issue on appraising the evidence confined to that of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 on the side of the plaintiff, DW1 and DW2 and Exts.B1 to B3 on the side of the defendants, CW1, Exts.C1 and C2, apart from the evidence of Exts.X1 and X1(a). Accordingly, after remand, suit was decreed. Though appeal filed challenging the said verdict, the same also was dismissed, confirming the trial court verdict.

10. According to the learned counsel for the defendants, even though the plaintiff obtained patta in relation to 15 cents of property, no such property is in existence. It is submitted that defendants obtained property on the basis of patta, issued in their favour and the plaintiff claimed right over the said property on the strength of patta issued in favour of the defendants. It is argued further that the property covered by the patta in relation to the plaintiff, marked as Ext.A1, not properly identified and the defendants filed objection to the Commission Report, disputing the identity of the plaint schedule property, on the basis of Ext.A1.

11. Dispelling this argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff as well as the defendants claimed right as that of cultivating tenants and accordingly, on adjudication of the claim put up by both sides, the Land Tribunal issued Ext.A1 patta in favour of the p