The civil court's jurisdiction in executing decrees regarding land is maintained, as long as statutory provisions are respected; adverse possession claims require clear evidence.

J U D G M E N T

The defendant in a suit for recovery of possession and damages has filed this appeal. Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, a devaswom, alleging trespass over the plaint property having an extent of twenty five cents of land situate in Survey No.425/1 in Chellanam Village in Kochi, after trial, was dismissed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Kochi. The contentions raised by the appellant/defendant to resist the suit claim for recovery of the property that delivery of the property claimed by the plaintiff under Ext.A3 delivery kaicheet was against the statutory interdictions covered by the Kerala Land Reforms Act , and that the defendant has prescribed title over the property by adverse possession, as canvassed in the written statement, were upheld by the learned Munsiff to non-suit the plaintiff. Challenge against the decision of the SA.NO.38/1997 2 learned Munsiff by an appeal, A.S.No.21 of 1993, at the instance of the defeated plaintiff, after re-appreciation of the materials on record, led to the reversing of the dismissal of the suit and allowing of the claim as canvassed for. The decision so rendered by the first appellate court is challenged in the appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff Devaswom in brief is that it is the owner of the plaint schedule property, which was previously under the enjoyment of a kanamdar, subject to liability to pay the rent. Since default was committed in payment of rent, the plaintiff filed a suit for realisation of arrears of rent against that kanamdar and that suit was decreed. Ext.A2 is the copy of the decree so passed in O.S.No.291 of 1968 of Munsiff Court, Kochi. In execution of that decree, the property of the kanamdar was brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff as the successful bidder in auction. The plaintiff later obtained delivery of that property. Ext.A3 is the copy of the delivery kaicheet. Long thereafter, the defendant trespassed upon the property and reduced it into her possession was the case pleaded to seek SA.NO.38/1997 3 recovery of possession with mesne profits. The defendant in her written statement pleaded ignorance of Ext.A3 and also the delivery of the property obtained by the plaintiff. Defendant contended that she purchased the property from the occupant, who was in possession of the property under a valid sale deed and, ever since, she continued as the title holder of the property. Defendant produced Ext.B1 sale deed and also Ext.B2 receipts evidencing payment of revenue charges over the property. Trespass alleged by the plaintiff was refuted claiming lawful title and possession over the property. Alternatively, it was pleaded that in case the plaintiff is found to be having title over the property, then, by virtue of her possession, tacked on with that of his predecessor, the executant of Ext.B1 sale deed, which was open, notorious and hostile to the plaintiff, she has prescribed title by adverse possession.

3. Though the suit was dismissed by the trial curt, the first appellate court found in favour of the plaintiff Devaswom and decreed the suit allowing recovery of possession with mesne SA.NO.38/1997 4 profits, negativing the contentions raised by the appellant/defendant.

4. Challenge against the findings of the lower appellate court by the appellant is based over the jurisdiction of the civil court in effecting delivery of a property covered by the provisions of the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955. Delivery of the plaint property claimed under Ext.A3 delivery kaicheet in execution of Ext.A2 decree as against the predecessor of the defendant is impeached contending that it was violative of the provisions of Section 73 (8) of the KLR Act, 1963. Since the predecessor of the appellant was admittedly a kanamdar in possession and enjoyment of the property as governed by Kanam Tenancy Act, Act XXIV of 1955, in a decree passed in a suit filed against that kanamdar before the civil court for realisation of arrears of rent, execution can be resorted only a