In property disputes involving re-survey inaccuracies, the court affirms that established rights of access and title must be properly adjudicated, supporting the necessity for evidence in contesting such claims.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikara, in A.S No.66/2004 which reversed the findings of the Munsiff’s Court, Kayamkulam, in O.S No.523/1999.

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

The plaintiff and the defendants derived right title and interest over the respective properties by virtue of a partition deed No.5118/1959. The plaint schedule property form part of the plaintiff’s share of 64 cents. According to the plaintiff, 2¼ cents of property was mistakenly shown in the property of the defendants in re-survey. The plaint schedule thus consist of 2¼ cents, and the defendant has no title over it and hence the suit for declaration and injunction was filed. The defendants resisted the suit by contending that the plaintiff does not have any right title and interest over the plaint schedule property. That apart an alternate plea regarding a right of easement by necessity was also raised. The defendants also derived title over their respective property by virtue of the allotment made in the partition deed. Therefore, the defendants contended that the plaint schedule property is the only access to the defendants’ property and that there is no other alternate way. On behalf of plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A4 documents were produced and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B4 were produced and DW1 and DW2 were examined. DW1 was the Advocate Commissioner. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the report and plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaint setup by the plaintiff cannot be sustained and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed A.S No.66/2004 before the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikara and by judgment dated 24.09.2010, the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed, declaring the plaintiff’s title and possession over the suit property and also a direction was issued to the re-survey authority to make necessary corrections in the re-survey records. Consequential injunction was also issued, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.

Hence the present appeal.

3. Heard Shri.Shankar V., the learned counsel, representing Shri.T.H.Abdul Azees, the learned counsel, appearing for the appellants and Shri.T.Sivadasan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. On 03.12.2025, this Court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

A. In a simple suit for declaration of title, was the court below justified in passing a decree as follows: The mistake crept in resurvey showing the ownership of the property will not in any way bind the plaintiff. The resurvey officials should make necessary corrections for rectifying the defects and effect mutation in the name of plaintiff regarding the suit property.

B. When in an earlier suit in which the predecessor in interest of the parties was a party, it is declared that there is a way, is not it relevant and admissible under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act to come to the conclusion that there was an assertion of a right of way even from 1957 onwards?

C. Assuming there is any mistake in resurvey, should it not be corrected in a suit under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act which is to be filed within a period as contemplated under the Act?

D. In the nature of the documentary and oral evidence, was