A party's title claim over property registered as puramboke cannot prevail without substantiating rights that contradict prior leases.

J U D G M E N T

The appellant is the plaintiff in OS No.51/2009 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Kanjirappally, a suit for declaration of title and mandatory and prohibitory injunction. The appellant has been concurrently non-suited by the courts below and hence, the present second appeal.

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

The plaint schedule property is situated in Cheruvally Village, which was one of the free holdings of the Vanjipuzha Chief. The properties of Cheruvally Village were unsurveyed lands. During 1114 and 1115 ME, the erstwhile Travancore State conducted a survey and settlement as per the Settlement Regulation-3 of 1109 ME. Under the said Regulation, it is contended that the Villagers were given permanent right of occupancy and their holdings were treated as registered holdings. However, at the time of survey and settlement, the plaint schedule property, which originally belonged to one Konthi, was described as puramboke land in the revenue records and was assigned survey No.822. But, the said Konthi was having no notice about the same and in 1122 ME, he executed a settlement deed No.4475/1122 ME, transferring his entire properties in favour of his children, whereby ‘A’ schedule to the said deed, 2.75 Acres of land including the plaint schedule property, was given to one of his sons, namely Konthi Narayanan. In 1966, the Tahsildar registered a kuthakapattom case in the name of Konthi Narayanan as KP No.46/66 and threatened Konthi Narayanan for eviction. Since he was an illiterate person, he accepted the plaint schedule property as kuthakapattom from the Government without understanding its consequences. In 1978, after a series of transfers of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff got absolute title and possession over the plaint schedule property by sale deed No.462/1978, and since then, he has been in absolute possession. During 2004, the 2nd defendant issued a notice requiring the plaintiff to renew the kuthakapattom case, KP 46/66, stating that it is a Government land. On receipt of the notice, the plaintiff issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the property is not a Government property and the kuthakapattom case registered in the name of Konthi Narayanan is null and void. Thereafter, in the year 2009, the defendants issued yet another notice stating that they were going to take possession of the property. Accordingly, the possession was taken, and a mahazar was prepared. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and a permanent prohibitory as well as a mandatory injunction directing them to return the property was filed. The defendants resisted the suit, contending that the plaintiff has no title over the property and that the property is a puramboke land, whereby Konthi Narayanan has taken it for kuthakapattom lease and that on expiry of the lease, the property was required to be surrendered and contrary to the same, it was transferred and thus, the plaintiff has no right over the property. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A14 documents were produced and the plaintiff was examined as PW1, and on behalf of the defendants Exts.B1 to B5 documents were produced and the 3^rd defendant was examined as DW1. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that Ext.A8 title deed in respect of which the plaintiff claimed possession, covers the property in survey Nos.821/1, 821/2 and 494/1 alone. Therefore, the trial court concluded that in the absence of any property covered under survey No.822, the plaintiff does not have any right, title and interest over the property. Accordingly, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. On appeal