In a suit for title declaration, courts must not rely on assumptions; clear evidence of ownership provided by plaintiffs must be prioritized, and findings deemed perverse must not obstruct rightful claims.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession by demolishing the illegal construction have come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below.

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

The 1st plaintiff derived the right, title and interest over the plaint A schedule property by a settlement deed of 2131 of 1978. The total extent of property mentioned therein is twelve (12) cents. The plaint B schedule property consists of two (2) cents, and plaint C schedule property consists of 523 square links. The building situated in plaint A schedule property, was leased out to a tenant, and during the period of absence of the tenant, an attempt was made by the defendants to trespass into the plaint B schedule property. It is contended that the defendants later started construction of a building on their property in violation of the provisions of the Kerala building rules and regulations, and, on complaint, the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation had directed the defendants 1 and 2 to remove the portion of the illegal construction. In the guise of effecting the changes as directed by the local authority, the compound wall was demolished. Thereafter, they constructed a new granite retaining wall and also extended the portion of their building protruding into the plaint B schedule property, which is included as C schedule. It is contended that the plaint A schedule property had a definite demarcating boundary, and the northern boundary lies on a higher level to a height of 3½ feet, and there is an old compound wall constructed of granite. The illegal attempt made by the defendants to demolish the compound wall and construct a new compound wall led to the filing of the suit. The defendants resisted the suit by contending that the plaint B schedule property does not form an integral part of plaint A schedule property. All the averments in the plaint were thus denied. It was further contended that defendants 1 and 2 had constructed the building strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala building rules and regulations, and since the defendants’ property is lying at a height of 3½ feet from the property of the plaintiffs, there should have been a new filling by earth, which is not available in the present case. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A33 documents were produced, and on behalf of the defendants Exts.B1 to B14 documents were produced. PW1 and PW2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, and DW1 was examined on behalf of the defendants. Exts.CW1 and CW2 are the court witnesses. Exts.C1, C2 and C3 are the reports of the Advocate Commissioner and Exts.C2(a) and C3(a) are the plans. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs do not have a title over the plaint schedule property and therefore dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.204 of 2011 before the Additional District Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, which was disposed of on 7.7.2014 by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court and hence the present appeal.

3. The appeal was admitted to file by this Court on 16.10.2025 on the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal, which reads as under:

i) Has not the courts below e