The reliance on unsubstantiated resurvey records for ownership disputes violates evidentiary standards, necessitating proper validation.

JUDGMENT

These appeals arise out of the common judgment in A.S. Nos.24 of 2009 and 25 of 2009 on the files of the Additional District Court -II, Mavelikara, by which the judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam, in O.S. Nos.89 of 2004 and 102 of 2004 was affirmed.

2. O.S. No.102 of 2004 was filed by the 1^st appellant herein for a declaration of title, whereas O.S. No.89 of 2004 was filed by the respondents herein for mandatory and prohibitory injunction. The facts in both cases are common, and therefore, for the sake of brevity, the facts are succinctly stated as follows:

2.1. The respondents/plaintiffs in O.S. No.89 of 2004 contended that the plaint A schedule property absolutely belonged to them and that they are using the B schedule property for ingress and egress of the A schedule property. B schedule property has the character of a public way since it is maintained by the Municipality and is vested with the Municipality. The plaint C schedule property is the portion on which the plaintiff in O.S. No.102 of 2004 has encroached upon. It is further contended that the plaint A schedule property is in Resurvey No.209/18 and the B schedule way in Resurvey No.209/20, and other properties of the defendants/plaintiff in the connected suit are in Resurvey No.209 of 2019. On 7.2.2004, the defendants planted four fencing stones, encroached upon the plaint B schedule property and attempted to annex the said property into theirs and hence the suit. The defendants resisted the suit by contending that the pathway in question does not extend beyond the property of one Dendayudhapani. The existence of 2.20 meter width pathway having an extent of 120 meters in length commencing from the palace road towards the east through the northern extremity of Mutharamman Kovil compound was admitted. But the further allegation that it extends beyond the north-western corner of the property of Dendayudhapani was denied. The defendants also raised a specific plea that the allegation that the said pathway is included in Ext.B6 resurvey plan was also not correct since the said plan was manipulated and issued at the instance of the plaintiffs. While so, O.S. No.102 of 2004 was instituted by the plaintiff/1^st appellant seeking a relief of declaration of title and mandatory and prohibitory injunction. The allegation of the plaintiff in O.S. No.102 of 2004 was that the defendants/plaintiffs in O.S. No.89 of 2004 were trying to cause destruction in the plaint schedule properties and to cut open a road under the pretext that there existed a public road vested with the Municipality on the northern side of the plaint schedule properties. It is further contended that the 1st defendant had planted four fencing stones in the plaint item No.2 property. Both suits were tried together, and O.S. No.102 of 2004 was taken as a lead case. Exts.A1 to A4 documents were produced on the side of the plaintiffs and Exts.B1 to B6 were produced on behalf of the defendants. Exts.C1 to C4(a) are the reports, rough sketches and plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner/Surveyor. Exts.X1 and X2 are the photocopies of the asset register of the Kayamkulam Municipality. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 to PW6 were examined, and on behalf of the defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined. The Advocate Commissioner who submitted the Ext.C4 report, measured out the property included as B schedule in O.S. No.89 of 2004 and concluded that a portion of the B schedule property has been transgres