Receipt of land acquisition compensation without objection establishes title and possession; unimplemented compromise decree does not divest title.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

The defendant in OS No.459/2007 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha, a suit for recovery of possession based on title, has come up in the present second appeal, aggrieved by the reversal of the dismissal of the suit by the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha in AS No.35/2011, appeal by the plaintiff.

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

98 cents of property in survey No.386/2/1-1 of Marady Village was obtained by the plaintiff as per deed No.1030/62 of Muvattupuzha SRO. 78 cents of the aforesaid land was acquired by the Government for the construction of a stadium for Muvattupuzha Model Government High School. The remaining property is the property scheduled to the plaint. The defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and due to certain altercations in 1998, he became inimical towards the plaintiff. At that point, the plaintiff preferred OS No.251/1998 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha, for an injunction against the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and committing waste. The suit was dismissed, against which AS No.142/2006 was filed before the District Court, Ernakulam. But the dismissal of the suit was affirmed by the first appellate court, against which the plaintiff preferred RSA No.312/2007 before this Court. This Court while affirming the findings of the courts below, granted liberty to the plaintiff to institute a suit based on title. It was thus contended that based on the liberty so granted by this Court in the aforesaid RSA, the present suit is instituted. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute the suit. The findings in the earlier suit constitute a res judicata. It was further contended that document No.1030/62 of Muvattupuzha SRO is a legally invalid and inoperative document. It was also contended that the father of the defendant had executed a settlement deed in the year 1951, wherein this property was bequeathed in favour of the defendant, and therefore, he has an absolute title over the property. The plaintiff subsequently amended the suit by incorporating the correct survey number in respect of the property. The defendant also sought an amendment incorporating additional averments in the written statement to the effect that the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is incorrect. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A5 documents were marked and no oral evidence was adduced. On behalf of the defendant, Exts.B1 to B7 documents were marked and DW1 was examined. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the report of the advocate commissioner and the survey plan. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintiff is having title over the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession?

3. Whether the suit is hit by res-judicate?

4. Reliefs and costs?

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found that the suit is not hit by res judicata. However, on a further analysis, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not have a case that at the time of execution of Ext.A1, the vendor was in possession of the plaint property and therefore did not get actual possession of the property and, hence, held that the suit for recovery of possession based on Ext.A1 is not maintained. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff pref