IMPORTANT POINT
A person in settled possession is entitled to protect their possession against even the true owner, regardless of title.

JUDGMENT :

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cherthala, in A.S.No.73/1998, which arose from the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala in O.S.No.869/1991. The defendants are the appellants.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are the following:

2.1. The plaint schedule property is 10 cents of land, which was the subject matter of O.A 300/1970 before the Land Tribunal.This property originally belonged to defendant No.1-Karayogam.

2.2. The plaintiff pleaded the following:

The plaintiff has been in possession of the plaint schedule property. She has been enjoying the property for the last 20 years. With the enactment of the Land Reforms Act, the plaintiff filed a petition as O.A No.300/1970 before the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered to issue a purchase certificate in respect of 10 cents of land in favour of the plaintiff. When the competent authority visited the plaint schedule property to measure out it, the office bearers of defendant No.1-Karayogam requested the plaintiff to satisfy with six cents. They also represented to the plaintiff that the title of the remaining extent of the property would be transferred in her favour by way of executing a sale deed after the general body of the Karayogam takes a decision. The plaintiff believed the words of the office bearers of defendant No.1-Karayogam and therefore, she put her signature on a paper, agreeing to reduce the extent of Kudikidappu to six cents. Even after that, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. She constructed fence on all sides except on the northern side. She also constructed an ESP-type latrine and a shed on the property for collecting firewood. She also erected a poultry farm on the property. The office bearers of the Karayogam did not execute the deed as agreed. They tried to prolong the execution of the sale deed. When the new office bearers took charge, defendant No.2 along with his men, attempted to demolish the fence erected on the sides of the property. Defendant No.2 threatened that he would remove the entire construction on the property. The defendants have no right to trespass upon the plaint schedule property.

2.4. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly entering the property and committing waste therein.

2.5. The defendants resisted the suit contending as follows:

The plaintiff is not in possession of the property as pleaded. She filed O.A No.300/1970 before the Land Tribunal, Thyacattussery. The Tribunal granted a purchase certificate in respect of six cents of property in survey No.207/18. It was given at the request of the plaintiff and also with the consent and knowledge of the then office bearers of the Karayogam. The defendants did not agree to sell any property as pleaded. The plaintiff is in possession of only six cents of land in respect of which the Tribunal issued the purchase certificate. In October 1990, the plaintiff trespassed upon the defendants' property and forcibly constructed a latrine thereon. In spite of repeated demands, the plaintiff did not remove the same. The defendants had initiated steps to remove the same. Neither defendant No.2 nor any office bearers of the Karayogam attempted to demolish the fence as alleged. There has not been any fence, as pleaded. The property other than six cents is in the possession of the defendants.

3. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property.

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for.

(3) Relief and costs.”

4. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the part of the defendants, DW1 was examined, and Ext.B1 was marked. Exhibit C1 was marked as Court Exhibit.

5. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint