In property disputes, where title claims are contested, a plaintiff must establish clear ownership; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT

The defendant in a suit for injunction has come up in this present appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against her.

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

The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Oriyam Madam Mana from where the mother of the 1^st defendant Kunjhukutty Amma obtained the same by virtue of document No.744 of 1966 of the Sub Registrar Office, Trithala. The extent of property, which is purchased by the Kunjhukutty Amma, is 40.46 Ares in Survey Nos.311/1A and 1B-4 of Trithala Mezhathur Amsom. Later, Kunjhukutty Amma assigned the aforesaid property to the State of Kerala under document No.2448/87 of S.R.O., Trithala. It appears that in the year 1991 as per document No.1722 of 1991 dated

22.06.1991 said Kunjhukutty Amma tracing her title to document No.744/66 transferred an extent of 3.6 Ares in Survey Nos.311/1A and 1B of Mezhathur Amsom to one Ayindruman. Ayindruman, in turn, by sale deed dated 31.10.1991 transferred the property to one Ahammed Basheer. Later, the Ahammed Basheer sold the said property on 05.07.1996 as per document No.238/96 in favour of Pathumma and later the plaintiff purchased the said property on 15.12.1999 as per document No.3921/99 from the said Pathumma. Based on a Possession Certificate dated 31.01.2001 and a tax receipt dated 09.05.2000, the plaintiff instituted the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit by disputing the title of the plaintiff and also independently setting up a title based on a gift executed by one Rajan Palisseri in favour of Chandrika as per document No.2998/89 of S.R.O.Tritahla dated 12.12.1989. The defendants also relied on various tax receipts and Possession Certificates and also further claimed that they had obtained a Purchase Certificate from the Jurisdictional Land Tribunal, but, however the same was not produced. In the light of the conflicting claims, the trial court embarked upon an enquiry as to whether the title of the plaintiff is sustainable and also entered an enquiry as to whether the claim set up by the defendants was proper. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence the trial court concluded that the plaint schedule property was not included in Ext.B1 and the same is under exclusive possession of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit. Aggrieved the defendants preferred A.S.No.68 of 2006 on the files of the Sub Court, Ottappalam by judgment dated 17.02.2012 the appeal was dismissed and hence the present appeal.

3. On 14.06.2012, this Court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law:

“i. Whether the courts below properly construed the recitals of the Ext.B2 documents and whether the courts below are justified in finding that 9 cents of land originally included in Ext.B1 document has not been included in Ext.B2 document?

ii. Are the Courts below justified in taking a decision in favour of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that defendants have not succeeded in proving their case?”

4. Heard Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt.Niveditha Prem V. appearing for the appellant and Sri.R.Sreehari learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant primarily submitted that in a case where there is a cloud in the title of the plaintiff, necessarily the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title. It is his further case that the late Kunjhukutty Amma did not have any balance property left in her possession after the execution of Ext.B1 document in favour of State of K