Alternate claims of title and adverse possession can coexist; erroneous rejection of these premises caused an unwarranted reversal of Trial Court's ruling.

JUDGMENT

The State of Kerala has come up with this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.10.2010 of the District Court, Ernakulam in reversing the dismissal of suit in O.S.No.92/2003 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Muvattupuzha.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

The respondents / plaintiffs filed a suit for fixation of boundary, injunction and an alternative prayer for recovery of possession. According to them, one Kunjahammed Ibrahim obtained 65 cents of property by virtue of partition deed No.2876/1960. During his life time, he alienated 3 cents and the remaining property is described in the plaint schedule devolved upon the plaintiffs after the death of Kunjahemmed Ibrahim. The properties on the western and northern boundary of the plaint schedule property are the property in which the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Pallarimangalam is situated. The boundaries, which demarcated the plaint schedule property and the school property, are not conspicuous and that there is a controversy regarding the boundary and possession of the plaint schedule property. The Government takes a stand that the property scheduled in the plaint is their property, which was handed over to them by one Haji Ismail Pareed. The suit was resisted on the ground that the said Ismail Pareed had surrendered the school property to the Government and executed a sale deed No.1005/1963 in favour of the Educational Department and that from 1952 onwards, the property is lying in their possession. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 and B2 were marked and Exts.C1, C1(a) C2 and C2(a) were marked. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings and documentary evidence, framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the plaintiffs have title over the plaint schedule property ?

2) Is the declaration prayed for allowable?

3) Whether the prayer for fixation of boundary is allowable?

4) Whether the injunction prayed for is allowable?

5) Reliefs and costs?

On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found that the contention of the plaintiffs that Ext.B1 document was a fabricated document cannot be accepted and accordingly, they found that plaintiffs had the knowledge of the construction of the school in the plaint schedule property and therefore, dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Court, Ernakulam found that the findings of the Trial Court that Ext.B1 is a forged document lacks probability and would confer title on the Government and the plea of adverse possession will not go together and hence, reversed the findings of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. As regards the prayer for recovery of possession, the prayer was declined and only the fixation of boundary was granted.

3. Heard Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Advocate General, assisted by Sri.V.Manu, the learned Special Government Pleader to AG and Sri.K.Denny Devassy, the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants and Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned Advocate General, on behalf of the State, contended that the findings of the first appellate court are erroneous. The Government held the property based on Ext.B1. The first appellate court has not interfered with the findings of th