The failure of a party to produce relevant title deeds can adversely affect their claim to property rights, validating the findings based on alternative credible evidence such as survey records.

This second appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 CPC filed by the 1st defendant/appellant is against the judgment and decree dated 18/08/2012 in A.S.No.282/2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Thrissur, which appeal in turn is against the judgment and decree dated 21/07/2006 in O.S.No.511/1997 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in O.S.No.511/1997. 2.The suit was one for recovery of possession, mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction. Initially, there was only one plaintiff. Thereafter, the 2nd plaintiff was brought on record as per order dated 04/02/2006 in I.A. No.1742/2005. The plaint A schedule property originally belonged to late Raveendran, the father of the 1st plaintiff as per document No.365/1976. Thereafter, as per document No.331/2005, S.R.O., Mullassery, the plaint A schedule property was transferred to the 2nd plaintiff. The defendants have no manner or right over the plaint A schedule property. A road was constructed after leaving some portion of the land from the plaint A schedule property as well as from the property of the defendants. The remaining land is in the possession of the defendants. The defendants are making attempts to trespass into the plaint A schedule property. In fact, on 05/05/2006, the defendants trespassed into the plaint A schedule property and reduced a portion of the same into their possession. The portion encroached by the defendants have been scheduled as the plaint B schedule property.

Hence, the suit seeking recovery of possession of the B schedule property, mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to remove certain constructions made in the B schedule property and for permanent prohibitory injunction.

3.The defendants filed written statement contending that the entire plaint schedule property is not in the possession of the plaintiffs.

Certain extent of A schedule property had been surrendered for the formation of the road and it is only the remaining property that was left in the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants’ father obtained Patta for 10 cents of property in which the defendants have put up a house and are residing therein. The plaintiffs have only 2 cents of property situated on the western side of the property of the defendants. In the said 2 cents, the defendants have not put up any constructions. The allegation of trespass into the A schedule property was denied by the defendants. According to the defendants, the plaint B schedule property is not identifiable. If only the properties are measured, encroachment if any can be found. It was also contended that the survey measurement of the property would enable the correct identification of the properties.

4.Necessary issues were raised by the trial court. The parties went to trial on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings. The 2nd plaintiff filed affidavit and Exts.A1 to A10 and Exts.C1 to C6 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. A request for adjournment was made when the case came up for the cross examination of the 2nd plaintiff as PW1. Though the matter was adjourned as per the request of the defendants, they never turned up and hence they were set ex parte. The trial court on a perusal of Ext.C3 report found that the defendants’ property had not been measured based on their title deeds. The property had been measured with the help of survey records. The trial court was of the opinion that as the title deeds of the defendants’ property had not been taken into account when the property was measured, the measurements done was not correct and hence held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the plaint B schedule property. Holding so, the prayer for mandatory injunction was also rejected. However, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was granted restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property or committing waste therein. The 2nd plaintiff ag