The court underscored the necessity to properly identify property in title claims, emphasizing remand for further inquiry if identification deficiencies exist, despite title being established.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession have come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit concurrently by the courts below.

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

As per the averments in the plaint, the plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Gowri Antharjanam, who assigned the property in favour of the 1st plaintiff and one Korungachi, the mother of the 2nd plaintiff. Subsequently, the mother of the 2nd plaintiff died, and her rights devolved upon the 2^nd plaintiff and thereafter to the plaintiffs. At the time of the death of Korungachi, the 2^nd plaintiff was aged only four (4) years, and thereafter, he was under the care and protection of one Matha. When he attained majority, he left the place and was residing at Kannur. The plaint schedule property is situated about three (3) kilometers away from the residence of the plaintiffs, and after the death of Korungachi, the 1^st plaintiff and the above caretaker of the 2^nd plaintiff entrusted the management of the property to the 1^st defendant. It is learned that the 1^st defendant transferred the possession of the property to the 3^rd defendant without their consent or knowledge. Thereafter, the 3^rd defendant had conducted certain religious ceremonies in the form of ‘suddhikalasam’ in the property. A notice was also published by the 3^rd defendant along with other defendants, saying that ‘swarna prasnam’ was being conducted in the temple as if the property were in their possession. It was only on receipt of the aforesaid notice that the plaintiffs knew that the defendants 2 to 8 are in possession of the plaint schedule property, and hence the suit was instituted. The 1^st defendant filed a written statement admitting the title of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property and that the property was being possessed and managed by the 1^st defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs. It was further contended that the 3^rd defendant got possession of the plaint schedule property from the 1^st defendant in the year 1995, making him to believe that it would be beneficial to him and his community to light lamps in the temple platform. Defendants 2 and 4 to 8 also filed a joint written statement disputing the title of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A11 documents were produced, and the 1^st plaintiff was examined as PW1. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B12 documents were produced, and DW1 to DW3 were examined. Exts.C1 to C6 are the reports and plans submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title over the property since that going by the measurements of the property covered by the original assignment deed, the property is described at 30x30 feet Kole excluding 10x10 feet Kole and that the plaintiffs were not able to identify the existence of the property having a measurement of 10x10 feet Kole and hence declined the relief of recovery of possession. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.9 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Koyilandy. The first appellate court, though, declared the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property, refused to grant the relief of recovery of possession on the ground that the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiffs is too scanty to prove their title over the plaint schedule property. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have approached this Court in this appeal.

3. On 7.1.2016, this Court admitted the appeal on the substantial questions of law framed in the