Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41574
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.R.ANITHA, J
RAMAKRISHNAN. P – Appellant
Versus
G. SUKUMARAN – Respondent
RSA 750 2015
A purchase certificate serves as conclusive proof of title unless challenged, and proper identification of property is essential to adjudicate ownership disputes.
Headnote:
Property - Appeal - CPC Order II Rule 2 - The court analyzed the validity of concurrent findings on property titles and held that the identity of the property should be established, remanding the case for proper determination of rights.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery possession, claiming title over a 7-cent property. The defendants contended their ownership of 23 cents, with conflicting certificates affecting property identity claims.
Issues: Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit based on the identity of the property and the applicability of Order II Rule 2 treating previous and current claims as identical.
Ratio Decidendi: The determining factor was whether the purchase certificates provided clear, conclusive title evidence, and the need for the plaintiff to prove the identity of the plaint schedule property.
Final Decision: The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.326/2003 on the file of Additional Munsiff's Court, Palakkad. The case was one for mandatory injunction with alternative prayer for recovery possession on the strength of title. Plaintiff alleges to be the exclusive title holder of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 7 cents as per purchase certificate No.5109/1976 of Land Tribunal-II, Kollengodee issued in the name of father of the plaintiff Pazhanimala who had verumpattam right over the property. Plaintiff is a co-owner of the schedule property. During 2000, defendants were permitted to put up a temporary cattle- shed in the plaint schedule property for a period of two years with an assurance that it would be demolished thereafter. In March 2002, plaintiff demanded to remove the structures.
Thereupon, the defendants raised untenable contentions and also started laying foundation for a building in the year 2003. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.181/2002 before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad for permanent injunction. Case was settled with the intervention of mediators and the defendants agreed to vacate the premises within six months. But the defendants did not comply with the undertaking and on approaching the mediators, they did not interfere. Defendants also resumed construction activities.
Hence the suit.
2. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. It is contended that defendants obtained title with respect to 23 cents of land comprised in Survey No.178/2 as per purchase certificate No.5108/1976 of Kollengode Land Tribunal No.II. Property is lying in two plots separated by road. The western side is having 12 cents which is being utilized by the defendants as dwelling house. The eastern property having 11 cents is utilized as firewood shed. It is in existence for the last sixty years. The purchase certificate shows the existence of defendants' property on south and east. On the north, there is a paddy land which also belongs to the defendants. The property covered by the purchase certificate No.5109 of 1976 and the plaint schedule property are entirely different. Hence, there is no need to obtain permission from the plaintiff to put up a cattle shed. During 2002 itself, construction of foundation was completed. Plaintiff voluntarily not pressed O.S.No.181/2002 without intervention of any mediators. At the instance of Chittur police, the road leading to dwelling house of plaintiff is demarcated by placing iron fences. The construction in the plaint schedule property started much prior to 10.04.2003 and completed on 07.05.2003.
3. Additional written statement was also filed contending that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2. The plaint schedule property fetches market value of Rs.2,10,000/-. Hence the valuation of the suit is not proper.
4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked from the side of the plaintiff. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked from the side of the defendants.
Exts.C1 to C3(a) and Exts.X1 and X2 were also marked.
5. The trial court on evaluating the fact, circumstances and evidence adduced, found that the plaintiff has no possession over the plaint schedule property and also failed to prove his title over the property. It is also found that the plaintiff has approached the court at a belated stage and accordingly the suit has been dismissed. First appellate court on re-appreciating the facts and circumstances found that plaintiff failed to establish that Ext.A1 takes in the plaint schedule property and identity of the schedule property has not been established and ultimately confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, the appellant has approached this Court in second appeal.
6. Notice was issued to the respondents/defendants.
Respondents appeared through counsel. Lower court records were called for and both sides were heard.
7
