Prior relinquishment of land to the erstwhile State is valid despite the absence of a formal statute governing such transfers, affirming title post-1956 amendment.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

Can State of Kerala claim absolute right, title and interest over properties relinquished in favour of erstwhile Travancore State in the absence of any particular statute governing the procedure for such relinquishment is the essence of the dispute raised in this Regular Second Appeal ?.

The plaintiffs in O.S No.552 of 1992 on the files of I Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction of the plaint schedule property are the appellants herein.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

The plaintiffs are the members of Noorani tarwad, who were in possession of 1 Acre of property in Survey No.169/4A of Thiruvallam Village, which is scheduled in the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the property was given to erstwhile State of Travancore, ruled by the Royal Family, during 1952 on the assurance that, it would be acquired, on payment of compensation or the Government would cease to occupy the said property whenever so demanded by the Tharwad. There were several yielding trees in the said property and the plaintiffs were collecting the usufructs from the said property. The occupation of the 1^st defendant was purely permissive. Even at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs were shown as the owners of the property in the revenue records. Finding that the Government is occupying the property without paying compensation and that making substantial improvements therein, the plaintiffs decided to issue a lawyer's notice on 20.08.1991, calling the State of Kerala to surrender the vacant possession of the land by terminating the licence to use the occupied plaint schedule property. To the said notice, on 01.01.1992, the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, replied by requiring the plaintiffs to produce documents to show their possession. Thus, after issuing notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs approached the Sub-Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the suit was amended by incorporating a prayer for declaration of title and also recovery of possession. This was by order dated 04.02.1993. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by raising an issue regarding maintainability of the suit. According to the defendant, the property was given as a gift to the erstwhile State of Travancore and that subsequent to the coming into force of the Kerala State, the property stood vested with the State of Kerala. It was further contended that, except Ext.A1 Partition Deed, no other document is produced by the plaintiffs to substantiate their claims that they are in possession of the plaint schedule property. Additional written statement was also filed to controvert the contentions raised pursuant to the amendments made by the plaintiffs. In the additional written statement it was specifically contended that the Karanavar of the Tarwad gifted the plaint schedule property to the Government for establishing the Government OfÏce through which the locality was developed and the land value of the plaint schedule property held by the plaintiffs also increased. The ultimate aim of the Karanavar of the plaintiffs is the welfare and development of the family and the property that the Karanavar, who was one competent to surrender or gift the property for the welfare of the family, cannot be challenged a