IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that plaintiffs failed to establish title or adverse possession over puramboke land, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence in land disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellants are the plaintiff Nos 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 12 in the suit. Plaintiffs 2 to 12 are the children of the 1^st plaintiff. The defendants 1 to 3 are State of Kerala Represented by District Collector, Tahsildar and Village Officer. The 4^th defendant is a person having property on the southern side of the plaintiff’s property. The suit was for declaration of title and possession of plaint B schedule property and for a consequential permanent prohibitory injunction against initiating action against the same.

2. Plaint A schedule property is having an extent of 60 cents equivalent to 24 Ares and excess situated in Survey No. 412 of Vadakkevila Village. It is situated on the eastern side of Ammanada-Chirayilkulam road. Plaint B schedule property is 2 Ares of land equivalent to 4.94 cents lying in a triangle shape inside the plaint A schedule property at its south west corner, which is mistakenly included in Re Sy. No.28/17.

3. Plaintiff instituted the suit when the 2^nd defendant issued Exts.B3 & B4 Notices dated 13.11.2003 under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, against the plaintiff and the 4^th defendant alleging that they have encroached into Puramboke land situated in Re.Sy. 28/17 of Vadakkevila village. It is alleged in those Notices that the total extent of puramboke land is 5.60 ares in Re- Sy.No.28/17. As per Ext.B3, the plaintiff is alleged to have encroached into 1.50 Ares. As per Ext.B4, the 4^th defendant is alleged to have encroached into 0.50 ares.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in substance is that large extent of properties including the plaint A schedule property belonged to Thekkekadappal branch of Kadappal Tharavad. O.S No.1134/1115 was instituted for partition before the Munsiff’s Court Kollam. Mother of the 1^st plaintiff Narayani Amma was the 3^rd defendant in that suit. The subject matter in the said suit was compromised by executing a Partition deed No.8018/1119 M.E, and thereupon, O.S No.1134/1115 M.E was withdrawn, and the Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn. Thereafter, another suit was filed before the Munsiff’s Court Kollam as O.S No.24/1120 M.E challenging the Partition Deed No. 8018/1119 M.E and for partition. In O.S No.24/1120, the Trial Court passed a Preliminary Decree ordering partition after setting aside Partition Deed No.8018/1119 M.E. Final decree was passed on 29.11.1997 on the application of the plaintiffs 1 to 9 in the present suit. The property allotted to the share of the plaintiffs 1 to 9 was plaint A schedule item No.3 property which is the plaint A schedule property in the present suit. The plaintiffs 1 to 9 got delivery of the plaint A schedule property on 26.09.2003 as per Ext.A6 Delivery Kaichit. The plaintiff put a fence on the western boundary of plaint A schedule property. Since the 4^th defendant who is having property on the southern side of plaint A schedule property did not have access to his property from the eastern road, the plaintiffs and 4^th defendant entered into a license agreement with respect to 1 cent lying on the southern extremity of the plaint A schedule property for a period of six months. A Pongu tree which is otherwise called as ‘Kambakam’ having an age of 50 years old was standing at the south western portion of plaint A schedule property. A banyan tree also began to sprout there. In the year 2003, the plaintiffs cut down the banyan tree. At the instance of certain people, the 3^rd defendant Village Officer issued Exts.B3 and B4 L C Notices Nos.10 and 11 of 2003 under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act alleging that the said tree is situated in the puramboke land. The properties covered by Exts.B3 and B4 L C Notices are part and parcel of plaint A schedule property which is the B schedule property in the suit. The plaintiff also claimed that even if the 1^st defendant is having right over plaint B schedule property the same has been lost by adverse possession and hence the defendants 2 and 3 are not entitled to take action under the Kerala Land Conservancy A