An admission of title precludes a claim of adverse possession, and boundary fixation must adhere to evidence from authoritative surveys.

JUDGMENT

The defendant in a suit, O.S. No.220 of 2009, for fixation of boundary and recovery of possession has come up in this appeal, contending that the findings rendered by the courts below are perverse.

2. The plaintiffs sued the appellant/defendant in a suit for fixation of boundary and recovery of possession. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that he had perfected the title by adverse possession. Therefore, the question was whether the fixation of boundary can be granted in respect of plaint item Nos.1 and 2. The title of the plaintiffs was not disputed. But then, the exact identity was the real dispute. Along with the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, a separate suit, O.S. No.318 of 2009, was also filed by the 2^nd plaintiff in O.S. No.220 of 2009 seeking for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial court, on joint trial of the suits, decreed both the suits and found that in the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, a fixation of boundary is required and therefore accepted Ext.C5(a) plan and allowed O.S. No.220 of 2009 and at the same time decreed O.S. No.318 of 2009 granting a right of easement by prescription over item No.3 in the said suit. Aggrieved, the appellant/defendant preferred A.S. No.27 of 2017 and A.S. No.28 of 2017 before the Additional District Court-III, Kottayam, and the first appellate court dismissed A.S. No.27 of 2017 by confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No.220 of 2009 and allowed A.S. No.28 of 2017 by setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No.318 of 2009. It is the sustainability of the judgment and decree granted by the Munsiff Court, Changanassery, in O.S. No.220 of 2009 that falls for consideration in the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri. Josekutty Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants asserted before this Court that the findings of the courts below against the appellant/defendant are perverse and require reconsideration by this Court. The primary objection raised by the learned counsel is as against the identity of the property, which was found by the Advocate Commissioner. It is thus contended that the findings are not in tune with the actual state of affairs and that the Advocate Commissioner erred in relying on the report of the surveyor for the purpose of identification of the property. The plea of the appellant/defendant for adverse possession was not primarily appreciated by the courts below, and therefore, the decree for fixation of boundary cannot be granted.

5. On an anxious consideration of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. It is indisputable that the title of the plaintiffs is admitted by the defendant.

6. It has also come out in evidence that the defendant himself preferred an application for refixing the boundary in respect of the property comprised in Re-survey No.184/9, and the boundary was refixed as per the resurvey records by measuring the properties of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the defendant in O.S. No.220 of 2009 and one Sri.Punnoos. Ext.A7(a) is the reply of the Taluk Surveyor. Ext.A7(e) is Form 10, which is an application for pointing out the boundaries of the registered land as already demarcated and surveyed. It has also come out in evidence that the Taluk Surveyor measured the property of DW1 on 23.1.2009, and the boundary located was accepted by the parties concerned. The trial court has found that the boundary was once demarcated as per the resurvey, and the same was accepted by DW1.

7. Still further, in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant/appellant, the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint item Nos.1 and 2 was ad