Plaintiffs' right to assert title over property is constrained by prior re-survey designating part as puramboke; appeal dismissed for lack of substantial legal question.

J U D G M E N T

O.S No.49/2002 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikara, is a suit for declaration of title, fixation of boundary and injunction, wherein the plaintiffs were granted a partial relief to an extent of 35.98 Ares of land, whereas, their right to claim absolute title over 98 cents was declined on the ground that a portion of the property was included in the re-survey record as puramboke land. Thus, the plaintiffs appealed before the Additional District Court II, Mavelikara. In appeal, the First Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs had objected to the proceedings of the defendants 1 and 2 as regards the re-survey and also had requested the revenue authorities to correct the mistake in the re-survey. The property was identified through the Advocate Commissioner and also the Surveyor. PW2, the Advocate Commissioner, who prepared the report, supported the findings therein and deposed that a property having an extent of 35.98 Ares equivalent to 88.87 cents was measured in Re-Survey No.380/3 and the property having an extent of 2.08 Ares equivalent to 5.150 cents, included in the Re-Survey No.380/18, was separately shown. Therefore, the essential dispute before the First Appellate Court was whether the plaintiffs had title to 98 cents. Finding that the defendants do not dispute the title of the appellants, but rather resist the claim on the ground that a portion of the plaintiffs property was included in the re-survey as puramboke and that re-survey was completed 26 years back and that the plaintiffs having acquiesced to the said proceedings, cannot turn around and institute civil proceedings asserting the right over the property.

2. The First Appellate Court, however, took the view that, inasmuch as the title of the appellants over the entire 98 cents, remains undisputed and that there is no basis for the revenue authorities to include the property in resurvey records as purmboke land, proceeded to allow the appeal and subsequently issued a direction to defendants 1 and 2 to make necessary corrections in the resurvey records in respect of plot No.’SQVTS’ and include the same as the property of the 1st plaintiff in the revenue records within two months. While, arriving at the said conclusion, the First Appellate Court also relied on the judgment and decree in O.S No.129/1996, which was instituted by defendants 3 and 4/ appellants herein against the 1^st respondent herein, wherein, the right of the way of the 1^st plainti found against him. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed by passing a consequential decree. It is now challenged by the defendants 3 and 4.

3. Heard Shri.K.Sasikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri.R.Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and Shri.Denny K. Devassy, the Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4.

4. Shri.K.Sasikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that there was no evidence before the trial court to show that the plaintiffs had objected to the resurvey proceedings. With specific reference to paragraph 29 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the learned counsel would submit that the First Appellate Court had exceeded beyond its jurisdiction in issuing a direction to the resurvey authorities to correct the entries in the re-survey records and include the same as the property of the plaintiffs. Thus, the Appellate Court has granted relief beyond the scope of the suit, necessarily, the same qualifies as a substantial question of law requiring this Court to go deep into issues.

5. On considering the submissions raised on behalf of the appellants, this Court mu