Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J
APPU JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
MAYINKUTTY – Respondent
RSA NO. 935 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.RAJESH KORMATH
For the Respondents: SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI DENNY DEVASSY, SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN, SMT.M.A.ZOHRA, SRI.K.MOHAMMED FAISAL NAHA
The court affirmed that a plaintiff can establish property rights through clear evidence of boundaries and possession, even if precise title deed identification is lacking.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act - Section 14 - Property dispute - Declaration of rights sought by plaintiff over property with injuries caused by resurvey - Claims made regarding boundary identification between plaintiff and defendants - Trial Court decreed in part for plaintiff; Appellate Court upheld - Claim by plaintiff validated by boundary evidence of teak trees; defendants failed to produce witnesses against allegations and documentary evidence. (Paras 6, 26)
(B) Appeal - Appellate Court did not err in affirming the lower court's findings when disputed properties were not measured against title deeds - Non-identification of properties not fatal, given clear mutual understanding of boundaries presented by both parties. (Paras 8, 26)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of rights over disputed property and injunction against defendants who claimed adjacent property; Trial Court issued a declaration in favor, limitating mandatory injunction. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff established title and delineated boundaries validated by physical markers; Defendants' arguments on boundary reliability and evidence lack criticized. (Paras 26, 27)
Issues: Identification of plaint schedule properties concerning title deeds; Bar against mandatory injunction under Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. (Paras 8, 14, 27)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the sufficiency of witnessed boundaries even in the absence of definitive title deed references; the county dispute resolution regarding property boundaries rests with civil jurisdiction. (Paras 20, 26)
Result: Regular Second Appeal and Cross Objection dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property boundaries and resurvey details (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' opposition to plaintiff's claims (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court's decree and appeals (Para 6 , 10 , 14) |
| 4. identification of properties and boundaries (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. legal principles regarding property titles and survey records (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. evidence and testimonies in boundary disputes (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. separation of property boundaries (Para 24 , 25) |
| 8. final decision on injunction and appeals (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
RSA 935/2018 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.100/2019
1. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants. They are husband and wife. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration of his rights over Plaint B schedule property, mandatory injunction to the defendants 3 and 4, who are the State and Superintendent of Survey, to correct the mistake in resurvey by including Plaint A Schedule property as part of Plaint B schedule property in resurvey records, and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing into plaint A schedule property and committing waste therein.
2. Plaint A schedule property was originally shown as 9.7 cents of land in Sy No.496/1A in Resurvey No.114/3 in Resurvey Block No.82, and after the Commission Report it was amended as 8.94 cents incorporating Resurvey No.114/2 also. Likewise, Plaint B schedule property was originally shown as 7 acres 12 cents of land in Sy No.496/1A in Resurvey Nos.99 &114/3 in Resurvey Block No.82, and after Commission Report it was amended as 7 acres 24.94 cents incorporating Resurvey No.114/2 also.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that A schedule property is a part of plaint B schedule property lying on the northern extremity of plaint B schedule property. The plaintiff derived a larger extent, including plaint B schedule property as per Exts.A1 and A2 documents of the year 1973. Plaint B schedule property is the property remaining with the plaintiff after alienations and relinquishment for road. Plaint B schedule property is having well defined boundaries on all sides. The property of the defendants 1 and 2 is situated on the northern side of Plaint B schedule property. Teak trees standing in a row separates the plaint B schedule property from the property of defendants 1 and 2. The plaint B schedule property and the property of defendants 1 and 2 are easily distinguishable. The property of one Achukutty Thomas is also situated on the northern side of Plaint B schedule property, which is situated on the eastern side of the property of defendants 1 and 2. There is barbed wire fencing to separate plaint B schedule property with the property of Achukutty Thomas. Kayyalas, constructed for the protection of the property of the defendants 1 and 2 is lying north-south and its southern end touches the northern boundary of Plaint B schedule property. In resurvey, Plaint A schedule property is included in RS No.114/3 in Block No.82, which is the resurvey number of the property of the defendants 1 and 2 and taking advantage of the same defendants 1 and 2 are attempting to trespass into plaint A schedule property. The Plaint B schedule property excluding A schedule property is included in RS.No.99/1.
4. The defendants 1 and 2 opposed the suit prayers contending, inter alia, that the Plaint A schedule property is not part of plaint B schedule property. The identity of the plaint schedule properties is not clear. The plaintiff has property in RS No.99, and on the northern side of the plaintiff’s property, defendants 1 and 2 have 6.04 acres in RS.No.114/3 as per Exts.B1 to B5 of the year 1988. The plaintiff is claiming right over a portion of the said property. There is no boundary separating the properties of both parties. The allegation that there are teak trees in a row to separate the property is incorrect. Trees are not boundary. There are other trees in their property. There is no Kayyala as boundary in their property. They believe that the claim o
