Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
Panchayath – Appellant
Versus
Plaintiffs – Respondent
RSA 1367/2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.K.B.Dayal
For the Respondents: Sri.John Joseph Vettikad
The court affirmed that property rights under a Kuthakapattom lease cannot be overridden by claims of vesting under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act without evidence.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Section 218 - Property rights - The Panchayath contended that the property vested with them under Section 218; however, the court found no evidence supporting this claim, emphasizing that a Kuthakapattom lease grants rights that cannot be overridden by the Panchayath’s assertions. (Paras 14-19)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - The court held that the suit for recovery of possession was not barred by limitation, as the period of limitation for such suits is twelve years, and the suit was filed within this period. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs contended that the Panchayath trespassed on their property, which they held under a Kuthakapattom lease. The Panchayath argued that the property vested with them under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Kuthakapattom lease was still valid and that the Panchayath had not provided evidence of their claim.
Issues: The main issues were whether the property vested in the Panchayath under the Act and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Kuthakapattom lease granted the plaintiffs rights over the property, which the Panchayath could not override without proper evidence or cancellation of the lease.
Result: Regular Second Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs claim property rights under a kuthakapattom lease. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. panchayath claims property vested under kerala panchayat raj act. (Para 3 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court finds no evidence of panchayath's claim to property. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. court rules on property rights and dismisses appeal. (Para 14) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S.No.943/2000 on the files of Principal Munsiff Court, Alappuzha.
2. The respondents/plaintiffs preferred the suit, contending that the Panchayath had trespassed into the plaint schedule property and was auctioning the right to set up temporary sheds. The act of the Panchayath, trespassing into the property and auctioning the area for conducting shops is without any authority, since the plaintiffs were put into possession of property as per Kuthakapattom lease Document No.1743 of 1102 M.E. Earlier, O.S.No.478/1998 was filed before the Munsiff’s Court, Alappuzha, in respect of 5 cents of property in Survey No.401/1 of Edathua Village, lying adjacent to the plaint schedule property. The aforesaid suit was compromised between the plaintiffs and defendant, had constructed a building in the aforesaid 5 cents of land based on the said compromise. The trespass is done by the Panchayath in respect of the other extent of the property.
3. The defendant appeared and filed a written statement contending that by virtue of Section 218 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994, the property vests with the Panchayath. It was contended that from 1978-79 period onwards, the Panchayath is auctioning the right to set up temporary sheds in the aforesaid property and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A8 documents were produced and on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 and B2 were produced. Ext.C1 report of the Advocate Commissioner was marked and Exts.C1(a) Mahazar and C1(b) plan were also marked. The Trial Court on consideration of the documentary evidence, framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to obtain a declaration of their possessory right over the suit property by virtue of the deed No.1743/1102 of M.E.?
2. Whether the defendant has been acquired exclusive possession and ownership of the suit property automatically by the coming into force of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act ?
3. Whether prayer for recovery of possession can be allowable?
4. Reliefs and costs.
4. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court found that the defendant/appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that it had got right over the property. The contention of the Panchayath that the Kuthakapattom lease was cancelled and the property was taken possession, was found against them, inasmuch as no evidence was adduced by them. Consequently, the suit was decreed and the plaintiffs were allowed to recover the property by initiating execution proceedings.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the Panchayath preferred A.S.No.91/2005 before the Sub Court, Alappuzha, wherein the plaintiffs also filed a cross-appeal for a declaration. The First Appellate Court, on appreciation of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross appeal and declared that the plaintiffs have a right over the schedule property only by virtue of Ext.A1. It is against the dismissal of the appeal confirmed in the judgment of the Trial Court that the appellant has come before this Court in the present appeal.
6. Heard, Sri.K.B.Dayal – learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - Panchayath and Sri.John Joseph Vettikad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs.
7. While admitting the appeal, this Court framed the following questions:
1. Whether the plaint schedule property stood vested in Edathua Grama Panchayath by virtue of Section 218 of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Kerala Panchayath Act, as it stood prior to Kerala Panchayath Raj Act?
2. Whet
