The failure to demonstrate the defendants' obligation to prevent land reclamation and the lack of sufficient evidence from the plaintiffs led to the dismissal of the mandatory injunction claim.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta, in O.S No.340/2006, affirmed by the District Court, Pathanamthitta, in A.S No.111/2009.

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

O.S No.340/2006, the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction, directing defendants 1 and 2 to restore the original paddy field within a stipulated period, or to let the plaintiffs be permitted to do so and allow the plaintiffs to realise the cost. Further reliefs are also sought for against the defendants to remove the unloaded earth from the plaint item Nos. 2 and 3. A consequential direction to the 3^rd defendant- District Collector, Pathanamthitta, to take appropriate proceedings against defendants 1 and 2 for violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967, was also sought for. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint item No.1 is 21½ cents of paddy land in Survey No.191/11/1, Re-Survey No.12/3 of Omalloor Village, which forms the western portion of a larger area of 43 cents. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one late A.C.Thomas, the husband of the 1^st plainti father of plaintiffs 2 to 4. The plaint item No.2 is 21 ½ cents of paddy land adjacent to the eastern side of the plaint item No.1. Item No.3 is 15 cents of paddy land lying adjacently on the south-eastern side of the plaint item No.2. According to the plaintiffs, all three items of paddy field are portion of a larger extent known as ‘Pyvallibhagam Ela’ in Malayalam parlance. The middle of said Ela there exist a ‘valiya thodu’ having 6 feet width and 5 feet depth in the east-west direction, which is separated by a kayyala, from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs were enjoying the natural right to drain out water from plaint item No.1, through plaint item Nos.2 and 3 and other adjacent paddy fields on the east for the last so many years. While so, the 1^st defendant reclaimed the plaint schedule property item No.2 into a garden land by filling it with earth at a height of 6 feet from the paddy field level and the 2nd defendant reclaimed plaint schedule item No.3 into a garden land by filing it with earth up to 6 feet. The aforesaid act is in total violation of the provision of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967, and therefore a complaint was lodged before the District Collector, who failed to take further action and hence notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued on 03.03.2006, and thereafter, the above suit was instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants herein. The defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit by contending that there is no cause of action against them. It was further asserted that they have not reclaimed the land and that the land in question was reclaimed much prior to their purchase. The 1^st defendant further denied the allegations that he had violated any of the provisions of the Land Utilisation Order. As regards item No.2, it was contended that the 1^st defendant purchased the property only on 02.02.2006 and that the plaint item No.3 was reclaimed about 30 years back and several coconut trees are standing in the aforesaid property having an age of nearly 20-25 years. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exts.A1 to A5 were produced and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 to DW3 were examined. The Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.C1 report, Ext.C1(a) mahazar and Ext.C1(b) rough sketch. The trial court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to move the case pleaded in th