Purchase certificate under Kerala Land Reforms Act s.72K is conclusive proof of title; plaintiff must prove own title in possession suit, defendants' non-evidence fails claim.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

The defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession have come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the reversal of the findings rendered by the Sub Court, Hosdurg, in O.S. No.168 of 2012, by the Additional District Court-II, Kasaragod, in A.S. No.72 of 2014.

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

Plaint A schedule property originally belonged to Thazhakkat Mana on Jenmam right. One Kappanakkal Kunhiraman, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs, being a tenant, obtained plaint A schedule property on an oral Kuzhikanam right from the aforesaid Thazhakkat Mana. Later, Kunhiraman obtained Jenmam right over the property from the Land Tribunal, Nileshwar, as per order in O.A. No.3651 of 1976 and thereafter the Land Tribunal issued a purchase certificate in his name. As per the purchase certificate, the plaint A schedule property is a compact plot with common boundaries. The western boundary of the property belonged to P.P. Kannan, who was another tenant under the Thazhakkat Mana, as well as George Thomas Kottukappally. As per the list of tenants approved by the Kerala State Land Board, Sri. P.P. Kannan has got the property in R.S. No.260/1A1A1 of Cheemeni village. Later, the Government took over the property from George Thomas Kottukappally, excluding the property owned by the tenants. When the defendants tried to trespass into the plaint A schedule property, Kunhiraman filed O.S. No.111 of 1983 and the suit was dismissed, leading to A.S. No.38 of 1987, which was also dismissed. Against the dismissal of the appeal, Kunhiramn preferred S.A. No.787 of 1990 before this Court, and this Court had remanded the matter back to the Sub Court for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the plaintiff to take steps to get the property identified, but the appeal was dismissed by the Sub Judge again. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred R.S.A. No.766 of 2003. However, the same was also dismissed. It is stated that the plaintiffs have got title over the plaint A Schedule property on the strength of the purchase certificate bearing No.16702/1976, and the earlier suit was dismissed only on the basis of some contradictions in the documents, which will not affect the title of the plaintiffs. After the disposal of the second appeal, the 2nddefendant and his workers trespassed into the suit property and reduced the same to their illegal possession, and hence the plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of possession. The defendants entered appearance, contested the suit and contended that plaint A schedule property was never in possession of the predecessor of the plaintiffs, namely Kunhiraman, on Kuzhikanom right from Thazhakkat Mana. It is also contended that the further averment that the western boundary of the property belongs to P.P. Kannan is also incorrect since P.P. Kannan is not in possession of the property. The Government had only transferred an extent of 1268 acres and 74 cents comprised in various survey sub divisions in Cheemeni village to the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. as per G.O.(MS) No.741/77/RD/Dated 13.6.1977 to raise cashew plantations. The District Collector, Kannur, in pursuance of the said Government Order, as per reference No.B6/105329/76 dated 15.6.1997 directed the Tahsildar, Hosdurg, to hand over the possession of the aforesaid extent of land to the then Assistant Superintendent of Cheemeni Estate of Plantation Corporation of Kerala. Consequently, the Tahsildar, Hosdurg, measured the aforesaid extent and handed over the property to the Assistant Superintendent of the Cheemeni Estate. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked, and PW1 to PW3 were examined. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not proved the identity of