IMPORTANT POINT
Revenue records do not confer title; boundaries can be established through man-made markers, and the inclusion of property in resurvey does not alter ownership.

JUDGMENT :

RSA 935/2018 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.100/2019

1. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants. They are husband and wife. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration of his rights over Plaint B schedule property, mandatory injunction to the defendants 3 and 4, who are the State and Superintendent of Survey, to correct the mistake in resurvey by including Plaint A Schedule property as part of Plaint B schedule property in resurvey records, and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing into plaint A schedule property and committing waste therein.

2. Plaint A schedule property was originally shown as 9.7 cents of land in Sy No.496/1A in Resurvey No.114/3 in Resurvey Block No.82, and after the Commission Report it was amended as8.94 cents incorporating Resurvey No.114/2 also. Likewise, Plaint B schedule property was originally shown as 7 acres 12 cents of land in Sy No.496/1A in Resurvey Nos.99 &114/3 in Resurvey Block No.82, and after Commission Report it was amended as 7 acres 24.94 cents incorporating Resurvey No.114/2 also.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that A schedule property is a part of plaint B schedule property lying on the northern extremity of plaint B schedule property. The plaintiff derived a larger extent, including plaint B schedule property as per Exts.A1 and A2 documents of the year 1973. Plaint B schedule property is the property remaining with the plaintiff after alienations and relinquishment for road. Plaint B schedule property is having well defined boundaries on all sides. The property of the defendants 1 and 2 is situated on the northern side of Plaint B schedule property. Teak trees standing in a row separates the plaint B schedule property from the property of defendants 1 and 2. The plaint B schedule property and the property of defendants 1 and 2 are easily distinguishable. The property of one Achukutty Thomas is also situated on the northern side of Plaint B schedule property, which is situated on the eastern side of the property of defendants 1 and 2. There is barbed wire fencing to separate plaint B schedule property with the property of Achukutty Thomas. Kayyalas, constructed for the protection of the property of the defendants 1 and 2 is lying north-south and its southern end touches the northern boundary of Plaint B schedule property. In resurvey, Plaint A schedule property is included in RS No.114/3 in Block No.82, which is the resurvey number of the property of the defendants 1 and 2 and taking advantage of the same defendants 1 and 2 are attempting to trespass into plaint A schedule property. The Plaint B schedule property excluding A schedule property is included in RS.No.99/1.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 opposed the suit prayers contending, inter alia, that the Plaint A schedule property is not part of plaint B schedule property. The identity of the plaint schedule properties is not clear. The plaintiff has property in RS No.99, and on the northern side of the plaintiff’s property, defendants 1 and 2 have 6.04 acres in RS.No.114/3 as per Exts.B1 to B5 of the year 1988. The plaintiff is claiming right over a portion of the said property. There is no boundary separating the properties of both parties. The allegation that there are teak trees in a row to separate the property is incorrect. Trees are not boundary. There are other trees in their property. There is no Kayyala as boundary in their property. They believe that the claim of the plaintiff is with respect to the trees belonging to them. The property in the possession of the plaintiff is replanted in the year 1987. The property belonged to the plaintiff is replanted in the year 1993. The Resurvey was conducted in the year 1975 and hence the suit is barred by limitation.

5. The defendants 3 and 4 filed Written Statement contending that the resurvey records came into force with effect from 01.04.1994. The Resurvey was done on 31.07.1975 in accordance with law. Though the plaintif