The court ruled that failure to produce adequate documentary evidence undermines a claim of title over property, especially in boundary disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

Challenging the decree for recovery of possession on the strength of title, the defendants 5, 10 and 14 are in appeal.

2. The plaint 'A' schedule property is a portion of the plaint 'B' schedule. Plaint 'A' schedule is item No.3 (Tak 3) in the 'B' schedule. The plaint 'B' schedule is a portion of plaint 'C' schedule. Recovery of possession is sought in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property.

3. The sole plaintiff died and the legal heirs are the supplemental plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the 'C' schedule property belonged in Jenmom to one "Kozhikkotte Kizhakkekovilakam". One Payi Amma got assignment of the property from the Jenmi under Kanam Deed No.1024 of 1889. Subsequently the said Payi Amma and others conveyed the property under Ext.A1 Sale Deed No.1094 dated 26.10.1889 to one Veerankutty, the maternal grand father of the original plaintiff. On the death of Veerankutty, the plaintiff's mother Kunhathunni Umma enjoyed the plaint 'B' schedule property as a legal heir. While so, she took the plaint 'B' schedule property on direct lease from the Jenmi as per Lease Deed No.209 of 1087. Subsequently the lease was renewed as per Ext.A7 document No.1637 dated 25.08.1928. The plaint 'B' schedule property is included as item No.5 in Ext.A7. The plaint 'A' schedule property is claimed to be the property described in Tak 3 in the said item 5 in Ext.A7 and situated as the western most among the three Taks. On the death of the mother-Kunhathunni Umma, the rights over the property vested with the plaintiff as the sole legal heir. Thus the plaintiff claimed title over the property.

4. According to the plaintiff, in respect of the property situated on the immediate eastern side of the plaint 'A' schedule herein, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants viz. one Kunhimuhammad had filed a suit as OS 359/1971 before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri, against the original plaintiff herein and others, claiming right over the property. The suit was later transferred to the Munsiff's Court, Perinthalmanna, and was re-numbered as OS 335/1973. Ext.A1 document produced in the present suit was marked as Ext.A34 therein. The larger extent of property including the plaint schedule property herein was identified in the said suit in Ext.C8 plan prepared therein, as included in item No.10 in Ext.A1. The said plan is produced in the present suit as Ext.A4. Ext.A4 plan identified the eastern and western boundaries of item No.10 property in Ext.A1.

5. The earlier suit was decreed by the trial court. In first appeal, the first appellate court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. Thereupon the present suit was filed for injunction simplicitor. However, on appeal before this Court in S.A.1062 of 1989, this Court found that the property situated on the western side of the 'A' schedule property therein, that is the plaint 'A' schedule property in this suit and the property further to its west, is admittedly in the possession of the plaintiffs therein (by then the original plaintiff was no more and the legal heirs namely, the defendants in this suit were impleaded). A decree for prohibitory injunction was granted in respect of the said property. Thereafter, the present suit was amended for recovery of possession on the strength of title.

6. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs. It was claimed that their predecessor Kunhimuhammad had obtained title over the property as per Ext.B3 Sale Certificate dated 14.08.1933, in O.S. 87/1931 of the District Munsiff, Manjeri and Ext.B4 delivery kaichit therein. The plaint 'A' schedule property herein is a portion of item No.8 in Ext.B3, it was contended.

7. The trial court held that the Advocate Commissioner had in Ext.A4 plan prepared in O.S. 359/1971 (renumbered as O.S. 335/73) identified item 10 in Ext.A1 and that the present plaint 'A' schedule property forms its part. However, the suit was dismissed finding that the plaintiff has not produced the title deed and has not p