A plaintiff's title claim must be substantiated, and mere claims of adverse possession without evidence cannot absolve the plaintiff's rights.

JUDGMENT

The defendant in a suit for recovery of possession, fixation of boundary and declaration of title has come up in this appeal, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below.

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

O.S. No.469 of 2009 was instituted on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Muvattupuzha, originally for a permanent injunction. By judgment dated 23.12.2011, the suit was dismissed, and an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff as A.S. No.7 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the case for a fresh trial after taking out a survey commission. The order of remand was challenged in F.A.O. (RO) No.167/2017 before this Court, and by judgment dated 15.9.2021, the order of remand was confirmed, and the parties were permitted to amend the pleadings and reliefs. Accordingly, the matter was transferred to Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha and subsequently the case was transferred to Munsiff’s Court, Kothamangalam and numbered as O.S. No.11 of 2019. According to the plaintiff, the plaint A schedule property consists of 93 cents and excess, if any, comprised in survey No.77/1/2B of Varapetty Village within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. The plaint B schedule is the property of the defendant and lies on the southern side of plaint A schedule property. The plaint C schedule is a pathway having a width of 10 links and length about 135 feet, starting from Latheen Pally (Latin Church)- Kudamunda road and ending at the plaint B schedule property, and the extent is two cents. The same was purchased by the defendant as per document No.2320/1983 of the Kothamangalam SRO. The plaint D schedule Property is a narrow strip of land having a width of seven (7) feet and length of 135 feet and lies in the eastern side of plaint A schedule and the western side of plaint C schedule property. The defendant offered to purchase the said property which was not accepted by the plaintiff, and hence the defendant tried to cut open a way having six (6) meters width through the plaint A schedule towards the plaint B schedule property after trespassing into the plaint A schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant demolished the boundaries of the plaint C schedule property and widened the plaint C schedule property into 13 feet width way, and it was done by trespassing into plaint A schedule property. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff had relinquished his right over the property on acceptance of Rs.15,000/- from him and therefore the plaintiff has no right title and interest over the property. It is further contended that the plaintiff has only 93 cent in his possession, going by the title documents, and excess, if any has been in possession of the defendant and therefore the said possession has become adverse to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has thus no cause of action to prefer the suit. On behalf of the plaintiff Exts.A1 and A2 documents were produced, and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants Exts.B1 to B3 documents were produced, and DW1 and DW2 were examined. Exts.C1 to C3(a) are the reports, rough sketch and survey plan submitted by the advocate commissioner. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plea of the defendant that he has purchased the plaint D schedule property for an amount of Rs.15,000/- and that the plaintiff has relinquished the right over the property cannot be sustained because of the absence of any evidence in this regard. Going by the