Property rights cannot be infringed upon without legal grounds; forced dispossession violates constitutional protections.

JUDGMENT

Sri.T.K.Radhakrishnan, the appellant in this Regular Second Appeal instituted a suit as O.S.No.190/2015 of the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') for declaration of title and consequential recovery of possession over the plaint schedule item No.3 and also for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore item No.3 property to its original status and other reliefs.

2. The averments made in the plaint in brief are capitulated below for better appreciation:-

The plaint schedule item No.1 property comprised in Re.Sy.No.255/21 of Kurichy Village having an extent of 1.10 ares of land was purchased by the plaintiff as per the sale deed No.274/2011 dated 3.2.2011. Likewise, an extent of 90 sq.m. of property in the very same survey number was purchased by the plaintiff on 19.5.2011 as per the sale deed No.1102/2011 of the SRO, Changanacherry. The plaintiff has been residing with his family in the above property for the last 4 years. He purchased the property from one Paulose. On the eastern side of the plaint schedule property is the Sankarapuram- Ikkaramattam road and towards the west-east, the Ayiroor-Vadakkethil road is situated. Connecting the above said roads on its southern side was a beaten track having a width of 2 feet and length of 22¾ feet. The above said property is being used by the defendants 8 and 9 who are residing on the western side of item No.1 property. Under the leadership of the 8th defendant, the western property owners trespassed upon the plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 and constructed a road with a width of 3.65 m. by grabbing 1.75 cents of property from the plaintiff and concreting the road annexing with the pathway. Subsequent to the trespass, the road is named as the Asariparambu-Puthenpurackal road. They have clandestinely included the road and the portion trespassed upon as the property of the Panchayat and entered in the asset register of the Panchayat subsequently. The defendants have no matter of right to annex a purely private pathway of the plaintiff and construct a road.

3. The 1st and 2nd defendants filed a joint written statement contending that administrative sanction was accorded for the work of the road in question on 26.10.2013 by utilizing the MLA fund for the financial year 2012-2013. The sanction was accorded on the basis of the approved estimate. The work was completed on 14.2.2014. As per the asset register of Kurichy Panchayat, the width of road is 3 metres and the length is 75 metres.

4. The defendants 3 to 6 also contended that the way is included in the asset register of the Panchayat. The 7th defendant is the Secretary of the Kurichy Panchayat. The 7th defendant had not filed any written statement denying the averments contained in the plaint.

5. The defendants 8 and 9 filed a joint written statement disputing the identity of the property. According to them, the boundary descriptions are clearly mentioned in the sale deed itself. Subsequently, on 19.5.2011, a false sale deed was got registered. The boundaries are clearly specified in the above sale deeds. The 9th defendant filed O.S.No.225/2015 seeking declaration of easement right. The vendor Paulose also filed O.S.No.165/2015 against the plaintiff alleging that the sale deed dated 19.5.2011 is vitiated by fraud.

6. Reiterating the contentions of the defendants 1 to 6, the 10th defendant would contend that revenue officials never made any corrections in the revenue records.

7. The trial court framed requisite issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exts.A1 to A42. On the side of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2