In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must independently prove ownership, and unable to establish a substantial question of law results in dismissal of the appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No.301/2012 on the files of Munsiff Court, Tirur. He assails the decree and judgment in A.S.No.35/2016 on the files of the Sub Court, Tirur, arose out of decree and judgment in O.S.no.301/2012.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on admission. Perused the relevant records including the verdicts under challenge.

3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as to their status before the trial court, as `plaintiff' and `defendants' hereafter for easy reference.

4. Plaintiff filed the Suit seeking declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property and also perpetual injunction. According to the plaintiff, he obtained title to the plaint schedule property on the strength of gift deed No.3907/2012 executed by one Mohammedali in his favour. It was contended that the property originally belonged to Thekkepediyakkal Mammed. Then he transferred the property in favour of Nellanchery Ibrahim and his brother Kammu. They transferred the property to Chekkamintepurakkal Beeran Moideen and Mohamedali. They transferred the property in favour of Vattiyamveettil Kunhimoideenkutty. Chekkamintepurakkal Mohamedali, the executant of the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, purchased the same from Vattiyamveettil Kunhimoideenkutty. Plaintiff raised contention that when the plaintiff wanted to construct a house in the property, the defendants obstructed the same disputing title.

5. In view of the contentions raised by the defendants as regards to non-joinder of parties, defendants 6 and 7, the President and Secretary of Vakad Juma-ath Mosque were impleaded as supplemental defendants 6 and 7.

6. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 filed written statement, inter alia, contending that the boundaries of the plaint schedule property shown in the plaint were incorrect. The attempt of the plaintiff was to grab the property belonged to Vakad Juma-ath Mosque used as its Khabarstan, on the strength of false and fabricated gift deed. They emphatically denied the derivation of title averred in the plaint. The specific contention raised by them was that Thekkepediyakkal Mammed obtained the property on the western side of the plaint schedule property as per document No.1981/1926 having an extent of 38 ¼ cent. Thereafter the plaintiff's father and grandfather purchased that property comprised in RS No.83/3. Now the plaintiff fabricated a gift deed to grab the eastern part of the property comprised in RS No.83/3, owned and possessed by the Vakad Juma-ath Mosque and used as its Khabarstan. According to the defendants, the plaint schedule property is the portion of the property on the western part of the property comprised in RS No.83/3 of Paravanna Desom of Pachattiri Amsom. Total extent of the property in the possession of Arichalipeediyekkal Kunjikammu was 57 cent. Thereafter, he wakfed the eastern part of the property to the Mosque about 90 years ago. After the death of Kunjikammu, the western part of the property was in the possession of his wife and children named Thekkepeediyekkal Mammad and Kunjali. Thereafter, 38 ¼ cent of property having 6 feet kole measurements of 27 X 17 out of 57 cent was purchased by Thekkepeediyekkal Mammad as per document No.1081/1926. Mammad transferred the property to Nellanchery Ibrayin and Kammu as per document No.722/1943. Nellanchery Ibrayin and legal eirs of Kammu transferred the property to Beeran Moideen and his son Mohammedali, who is the father of the plaintiff, as per document No.2207/1980. Thereafter, Mohammedali and legal heirs of Beeran Moideen transferred 17 cent of property having 6 feet kole measurement of 16 ½ X