A claimant over puramboke land must join necessary parties and provide statutory notices, or the suit becomes invalid.

J U D G M E N T

--------------------

Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff’s Court, Kochi in O.S.No.380/2012, followed by those of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kochi, in A.S.No.20/2015, the plaintiff, who was non- suited, has come up with this Regular Second Appeal.

2. The suit is one for recovery of possession based on title and perpetual injunction in respect of plaint A and B schedule properties. The plaintiff has claimed title over plaint A schedule property through Exhibit-A1 Sale Deed. The plaint A schedule property is 0.939 cents of property, out of 1.505 cents of property in Survey No.156/3 of the Kumbalangi Village. Further, according to the plaintiff, his predecessors in interest had reclaimed a portion of the puramboku thodu, lying at the western side of the plaint A schedule property and reduced it into their possession, which is plaint B schedule property. Following them, the plaintiff is also in possession and enjoyment of plaint B schedule property.

3. According to the plaintiff, under the guise of Exhibit-A6 Resolution of the Chellanam Grama Panchayath, the defendants reclaimed the remaining portions of the puramboke thodu and also by trespassing into the plaint A and B schedule properties, constructed a road. Presently, plaint A and B schedule properties as well as the puramboke thodu situated at the western side is lying as a road. The plaintiff has come up with the suit for recovery of possession against the defendants, who are private persons and also for a decree of perpetual injunction.

4. The suit was strongly resisted by the defendants on the grounds that the suit is not maintainable, the suit is bad for want of notice under Order I Rule 8 CPC, and further that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It has also been contended that the suit is hit by want of Section 80 notice against the Government and also want of notice under Section 249 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act . It has also been contended that the Government as well as the Panchayat are not made parties to the suit and therefore, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

5. It has been contended that all the persons of the locality have been making use of the Panchayat road in question and therefore, the suit is bad in the sense that no notice under Order I Rule 8 CPC had been effected. According to the defendants, the Chellanam Grama Panchayat had passed Exhibit-A6 resolution, whereby they had decided to construct a road through the puramboke thodu vested in the Panchayat.

6. When that decision was not implemented, the matter was taken up before this Court through Writ Petition (C) No.11211/2008. This Court, vide judgment dated 02.04.2008, directed the Grama Panchayat to do what was necessary in the matter. Consequently, the said road was constructed at the instance of the Chellanam Grama Panchayat. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has no manner of right over plaint A schedule property or plaint B schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession of either plaint A or plaint B schedule property. It has been further contended that plaint A schedule property is not identifiable and therefore, any recovery cannot be granted.

7. The trial court found that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the matter was taken up in appeal before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kochi as A.S.No.20/2015. The lower appellate court also concurred with the findings entered by the trial court, and dismissed the appeal.

8. This Regular Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum:

“(i) Is it not the court below misinterpreted Ext.A2 judgment and Ext.A5?

(ii) When there is clear evidence in the case that the action of the defendants is per se illegal and highhanded and the plaintiff was forcefully thrown out from