Claims of property title require precise identification; failure to substantiate claims leads to dismissal.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.80/2003 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Neyyattinkara which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1161/1999 on the file of Second Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara.

2. Suit was one for declaration of title, possession and injunction. (Parties are hereinafter referred as per their status before the trial court).

3. Plaint schedule property was Government land and plaintiff obtained the same as per pattayam No.LA II/8/94. That property has been re-surveyed and thandaper also obtained to the plaintiff. The property lying on the southern and western side of the plaint schedule property belong to the defendant. In between the property of the plaintiff and defendant, on the south and west there is pathway. There are well defined boundaries on all sides of the plaint schedule property. On 04.12.1999 defendant attempted to trespass into the plaint schedule property and demolished southern and western boundaries to annex the same to his property. Though the attempt was defeated due to the intervention of the plaintiff, apprehending future trespass, the suit has been filed.

4. Defendant filed written statement disputing the description of the plaint schedule property. It is contended that the property obtained by the plaintiff as per patta is not lying within the boundaries described in the plaint. The plaintiff has no right over the property comprised in re-survey No.170/2014. Survey No.693/2-2-6-1 does not relates to Re-survey No.170/2014. Plaintiff has no property nearby or adjacent to the property of the defendant. There is no pathway or boundary as alleged. The suit is filed with an intention to take possession of the property of the defendant. Father of defendant obtained 37½ cents of property comprised in re-survey No.693/2 of Vellarada Village as per a sale deed. 17 cents out of it was assigned to Omana and Madhu and remaining property has been transferred to the defendant as per Deed No.1717 of 1994 and his property is lying within the well defined boundaries and plaintiff filed the suit to grab the property of the defendant. Plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant.

5. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A3 marked from the side of the plaintiff. Exts.C1, C1(a), C2, C2(a) were also marked. No evidence was adduced from the side of the defendant.

6. Learned Munsiff, on evaluating the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced, found that the description of plaint schedule property is not based on any document and the boundaries of the plaint schedule property is not stated in Ext.A1 patta. Ext.A3 tax receipts would show that the plaintiff is paying tax only for 4 Ares 40 sq.metres comprised in re-Survey No.170/14. Ext.A1 contains old Survey No.693/2-2-6-1. The plaintiff failed to prove that property comprised in re-survey No.170/14 is the property obtained by him by virtue of Ext.A1. So, ultimately it was found that plaintiff described the property in such a way to include more extent than the property covered by Ext.A1 patta and hence plaintiff failed to prove the title and possession over the plaint schedule property and hence prayer for declaration of title and possession was refused and consequential prayer for injunction was also refused and suit dismissed.

7. Against which plaintiff filed A.S.No.80/2003 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Neyyattinkara. Learned Sub Judge, on re-appreciating the facts and circumstances and evidence, found that even though plaintiff claimed title and possession as per Ext.A1 with respect to 4.40 Ares of property, the Commissioner reported the possession of the plaintiff over 4.92 Ares. It is further found that plaintiff effected mutation and tax is being paid. Hence trial court ought to have granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 4.40 Ares and accordingly the suit is decreed reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

8. Aggrieved by th