The courts erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit without addressing critical issues of property title and possession, validating his claim for a declaratory relief against unauthorized deeds.

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and a declaration that the execution of sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property is not binding upon him, has come up aggrieved by the concurrent findings against him by the Munsiff-Magistrate’s Court, Mannarkkad in OS No.91 of 2004 as affirmed by the Sub Court, Ottappalam in AS No.86 of 2010.

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

The plaint schedule property was originally held by the plaintiff's father, Abdu, along with the other properties on leasehold right, which was subsequently assigned in favour of the plaintiff's mother, Pathumma, by Deed No.4256/1975 of SRO, Mannarkkad. Thereafter, Jenmam right of the property was obtained by Pathumma from Land Tribunal, Mannarkkad as per Purchase Certificate No.164/94. Later, by gift deed No.1445/2004 of SRO, Mannarkkad, the mother of the plaintiff transferred the right title and interest over the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and thus he is in possession of the property. Defendants 1 to 3 are having properties on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. On the northern side of the plaintiff's mother's property covered by the 1975 deed, there was a way and on the eastern side of the said property, there was a footpath. Later, the pathway and the footpath were developed into a road. Out of the 2.53 Acres of land covered by the plaintiff's mother's title deed, excluding the plaint schedule property, the remaining property was developed as a rubber plantation. The plaintiff further contended that his mother had left some property on the western side of the plaint schedule property and thus the present western side road was formed. The defendants unnecessarily raised a claim that the title of the plaintiff's mother covered by the 1975 deed extends only to the road lying on the western side of the plaint schedule property and therefore, they disputed the plaintiff's right over the plaint schedule property. On 11.7.2004, the defendants tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property and hence the suit. Later by I.A.No.911/2006, the suit was amended by stating that the 3rd defendant had executed a deed in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property as per sale deed No.1778/2004 of SRO, Alanallur and the same is not binding upon him. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement contending that the property shown in the plaint schedule is not in existence, and the plaintiff's mother's property covered by the 1975 deed does not extend beyond the Panchayat road lying on the western side of the plaint schedule property. Going by the boundaries prescribed in the Purchase Certificate, the plaintiff does not have a title over the property. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A9 documents were marked and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B5(b) documents were marked and DW1 was examined. Exts.C1 to C9 are the plans and reports etc. submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Certified copy of document (Deed) No.1778/2004 of SRO, Alanallur dated 13.7.2004 was marked as Ext.A9. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration:

1) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction?

2) Whether the plaint scheduled property is identifiable? If so, what is the correct identity of plaint schedule property?

3) Whether the plaintiff has got right and possession over plaint scheduled property?

4) Whether the registered document bearing No.778/2004 of SRO, Alanallur is null and void one?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief prayed for?

6) Relief and cost?

The Advocate Commiss