Panchayat cannot assert ownership without evidence, court upheld property rights of plaintiff.

EASWARAN S., J.

------------------------------

R.S.A. No. 132 of 2025 -------------------------------

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2025 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Angadippuram Grama Panchayat, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below in a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction.

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

The plaintiff instituted the suit stating that defendants 1 to 5 in the guise of the widening of the road are intending to trespass upon to the plaint schedule property and demolished the compound wall. Later, the appellant Grama Panchayat was impleaded in the suit. The defendants 1 to 5 resisted the suit contending that the plaint schedule property was not identified. The defendants also resisted the suit by contending that the plaintiff has no right to obstruct the road which is being used by the people for their commutation. The allegation that the defendants 1 to 5 trespassed into the plaint schedule property was denied. I.A.No.1191/2012 was filed by the plaintiff to implead the appellant as the additional 6^th defendant. The additional 6^th defendant contended that the western boundary of the plaint schedule property lies the Mecheriparambu-Oradampalam main road and that the said road is included in the Asset Register of the Angadippuram Grama Panchayat and therefore the plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain the suit against the 6^th defendant. On behalf of the plaintiff Exts.A1 to A8 documents were produced. PW1 was examined. On behalf of defendants Exts.B1 and B2 documents were produced. DW1 and DW2 were examined. Ext.C1 Eye sketch, Exts.C2 and C4 reports and Ext.C3 plan were filed by the Advocate Commissioner. The trial court, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the Advocate Commissioner has found, after measurement, of the plaint B schedule property, it includes the plot which is marked as ‘W1’ and the plot ‘M’ in the survey plan and the plaint B schedule property is marked as ‘ABEFA’ in Ext.C3 plan. Thus, the plaintiff’s possession over the plaint schedule property were found. Though the appellant-6th defendant had a case that the property in question was included in the Asset Register of the Panchayat, it failed to adduce any evidence as regards the said contention and consequently, decreed the suit and specifically directed the 6^th respondent to reinstate the spaded portion of the plaint B schedule property to its previous position within two months. Aggrieved, the 6^th defendant preferred A.S.No.90 of 2017 and by judgment dated 29.09.2023, the same was dismissed and hence the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri.Sreehari R., the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Jayesh Mohan Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/plaintiff.

4. On consideration of the submissions raised across the Bar, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Though DW2 asserted that, the portion of the plaint B schedule property was included in the Asset Register, he clearly admitted that there is no record to show that the road lying in Survey No.113/2 was surrendered by anyone to the Grama Panchayat or was under the ownership of the Grama Panchayat.

5. The evidence recorded by the trial court and appreciated by the first appellate court clearly depicts the unauthorized acts of defendant 1 to 5, with the connivance of the appellant Panchayat, to carve out a portion of the plaintiff’s property in the guise of widening of road. The courts below had concurrently found that there was an attempt to create a new motorable pathway which included plai