Concurrent findings on title and property identity not perverse; no substantial question of law under CPC ss.100, 103 for reappreciation.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

The plaintiff in a suit for injunction and recovery of possession has come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit concurrently by the courts below. During the pendency of this appeal, the original appellant/plaintiff died, and his legal heirs are impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 9.

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

The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Keezhichalil Onakkan, sister Matha, Choyichi and the plaintiff as per the partition deed dated 22.12.1942. Choyichi died without children, and her right devolved upon Onakkan, Matha and the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property is item No.4 of document No.4 of 1943 of the SRO, Vatakara. Onakkan and Matha took renewal of the property from the landlord on behalf of the plaintiff also as per document No.3485/1944 of SRO Vatakara. Item No.4 of the said document in the said deed is the plaint schedule property. After the death of Onakkan, his legal representative, Balan assigned one-third of the right belonging to Onakkan to the plaintiff as per document No.537/1961 of SRO, Vatakara. Matha died and her legal representative Janu assigned the 1/3rd right of Matha to the plaintiff as per document No.194/1975 of SRO, Vatakara. Since the defendants 1 and 2, with the concurrence of defendants 3 to 5, started to make arrangements to construct a compound wall for the school in the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. It was further contended that the survey number of the plaintiff’s property shown as 50/5 in the document is a mistake. In the alternative, the plaintiff sought for recovery of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title. It was further contended that the survey number shown in the document in respect of the undisputed section of the plaintiff’s property and the neighbouring properties is also not correct. The defendants have title only in respect of the property situated in Resurvey No.50/1A1 and 50/2. The defendants 1 to 3 resisted the suit by contending that the plaintiff had no cause of action and that the descriptions of defendants 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule property are incorrect. It was further pointed out that the plaint schedule property with its adjacent area was purchased in the year 1957 by the then managing committee of the school as per document No.1657/1957 of SRO, Vatakara. The descriptions of the property in the document will clearly show that the property of the plaintiff is outside the property in possession of the government school. In any event, the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and adverse possession. The 4^th defendant filed a separate written statement resisting the plea and following the contentions raised by the defendants 1 to 3. The 5^th defendant also filed a separate written statement stating similar lines. It was further contended that the allegation of the plaintiff that the school compound is situated in R.S. No.50/1A1 and 50/2 is incorrect. The further allegation that the portion of the property covered by document No.1657/1957 had been taken away for the formation of the road, and a portion is included in the compound where the Veterinary hospital is situated, is baseless. The plaint schedule property is known by the name “Puthiyappu Male Tharissu Sthalam Enna Randam Tack”. It was further contended that it is incorrect to say that it is locally known as “Vaikkilerintavida Paramba”. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A17 documents were marked, and PW1 to PW4 were examined. On behalf of the defendants Ext.B1