The principle of res judicata under Section 11 CPC and the bar of limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are the key legal principles applied by the court in reaching its decision.

This second appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 CPC filed by the plaintiff/appellant is against the judgment and decree dated 18/11/2023 in A.S.No.31/2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Payyannur, which appeal in turn is against the judgment and decree dated 26/02/2011 in O.S.No.163/2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Payyannur. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in O.S.No.163/2008.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the defendants/respondents seeking declaration and consequential injunction. According to the plaintiff, his father obtained three acres of property as per purchase certificate no.18248/1976 issued in O.A.No.6209/1976 by the Land Tribunal, Taliparamba. Out of the said three acres, the plaint A schedule property was gifted to the plaintiff as per document no.2151/2004 of S.R.O., Peringome. Since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The properties of defendants 1 and 2 are situated on the eastern and western side of the plaint A schedule property. The river on the northern side of the plaint A schedule property is vested in the third defendant panchayat. The plaint B schedule, part of plaint A schedule property, is not river puramboke.

2.1. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a false suit, that is, O.S.No.114/1988, alleging attempt of trespass into their property by the plaintiff's father. Before filing the said suit, defendants 1 and 2 colluding with the then Taluk Surveyor, Taliparamba in an application to fix the northern boundary of the property, removed some of the survey stones and fixed the survey boundary about 75 links to the further south of the existing survey boundary, which was against the field measurement book and plan. On the basis of the wrong fixation of the boundary line, O.S.No.114/1988 came to be partly decreed in favour of defendants 1 and 2. First appeal, A.S.No.3/1991 and the second appeal, S.A.No.714/1995 affirmed the decree of the trial court. The judgment of the second appeal was dated 07/04/2008. By misusing the order of injunction obtained in O.S.No.114/1988, defendants 1 and 2 committed damage in the property. After the survey boundary had been wrongly fixed by the then Taluk Surveyor, Taliparamba, the Tahsildar as per notice dated 15/08/1988 informed the parties that the northern survey line of R.S.No.90/1 had been re-fixed and any person aggrieved by the same could file an appeal before the District Survey Superintendent. Accordingly, the plaintiff's father filed ALC.86/88 D8. Pursuant to the same, the District Survey Superintendent measured the property and refixed the survey line and survey stones in accordance with the field measurement book and passed an order to the said effect on 20/10/1992. These facts had been reported by the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.132/1991 filed by the plaintiff's father. It was only because the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.114/1988 inspected the property when the survey stones and the survey boundary had been wrongly fixed by the Surveyor, he happened to submit a report and plan based on the wrong survey boundary, on the basis of which the suit came to be wrongly decreed in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff's father was unable to bring the real facts to the notice of the appellate court including the re- fixation of the survey boundary and hence the decree of the trial court came to be wrongly confirmed by the appellate courts also.

In none of the earlier cases, third defendant panchayath was a party. The decree passed in O.S.No.114/1988 and confirmed in the first and the second appeals, has cast a cloud on the title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and therefore the suit for declaring that the survey boundary shown by the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.132/1991 to be the actual survey boundary. As the panchayath was not a party in the earlier proceedings, there is no bar in filing a fre