Title to property can be established through a combination of possession, documentary evidence, and the absence of credible claims to ownership by opposing parties.

JUDGMENT

Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. 64 of 1990 are the appellants. During the pendency of this appeal, the first appellant, first respondent and the third respondent died. Their legal heirs have been brought on the party array. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court.

2. The suit was one for declaration of title, possession and other ancillary reliefs. Injunction was sought for in respect of 91 cents shown as A schedule property comprised in Sy. No.323/9-B of Chunakkara Village. Declaratory reliefs were confined to plaint B schedule property which is part of plaint A schedule property having an extent of 1 ½ cents in the same survey number. 3. Plaint A schedule property, according to the plaintiffs, was jointly purchased by the third plaintiff, her S.A.461/1997. 2 sister Kali, another sister Chakki and another sister Thevi as per Ext.A1 of the year 1124 M.E. The rights of Thevi and Kali were assigned to plaintiffs 1 and 2 as per Exts.A3 and A4. They are the son and daughter-in-law of Kali. The defendants have no manner of right over the suit property. They trespassed into plaint B schedule property and removed earth from that portion of the property and reduced B schedule into their possession. That necessitated the suit seeking necessary reliefs.

4. The defendants disputed the title of the plaintiffs. According to them, the documents relied on by the plaintiffs are fraudulent and concocted ones. They would say that 91 cents in Sy.No.323/9B, 26 cents in Sy. No.328/2B and 67 cents in Sy. No.319/1 belonged to Athichan and Raman, the uncles of the plaintiffs as per Ext.B1 of the year 1120 M.E. They died as bachelors and the properties devolved on the defendants. When Chakki, Thevi and Kali were rendered homeless by the act of their uncles, S.A.461/1997. 3 the defendants permitted them to reside on the southern portion of 1.84 acres of land. They took up residence therein. Late Kali and the third plaintiff applied for purchase of kudikidappu on the basis of an agreement between the parties. But contrary to the understanding they put up a building in the property and the agreement could not be carried out. The plaintiffs have started trespassing into other portions of the property for which they are not entitled to and they have the right merely to occupy the building. They do not have title to the property. On the basis of these contentions they prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

5. On the above pleadings issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A8 from the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants had D.Ws.1 and 2 examined and Exts.B1 to B23 marked. Exts.C1 and C2 are the commission report and mahazar. On an evaluation of S.A.461/1997. 4 the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the following conclusions:

i) The plaintiffs have not proved title to the suit property.

ii) Plaintiffs are in possession of a portion of the property.

iii) Plaintiffs have been residing in the property for a long time.

iv) Since the property in the possession of the plaintiffs has not been properly identified, no injunction can be granted.

On the basis of the above findings the suit was dismissed.

6. The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal as A.S.192 of 1992 before the District Court, Mavelikkara. The lower appellate court on a re-evaluation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have been successful in proving title and possession and granted a decree to the plaintiffs as prayed for.

S.A.461/1997. 5

7. In this Second Appeal notice is seen issued on the following questions of law:

“A. Has the lower appellate court any jurisdiction to grant a decree of declaration of title on the basis of a derivation of title, which was never pleaded or put forward?

B. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs have proved their title to the suit property so as to grant a decree of de