A party claiming property title must produce original documents or evidence to establish ownership, and settled possession can entitle to an injunction despite title issues.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein. The suit is for declaration of title and for injunction. The trial Court granted a decree as prayed for. The first appeal filed by the defendant was allowed by the first appellate Court and the suit got dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

2.According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit properties with an extent of 9.86 hectares situated in old S.Nos.6269, 6343, 6347 and 6349 relevant to Re.S.Nos.661/1, 667, 668, 671, 672/9, 679/1, 706 and 748/3 originally belonged to Mundakayam Valley Rubber Company Limited, a Company incorporated in England. The plaintiff purchased the suit properties along with larger extent of adjacent lands under a registered sale deed, dated 27.07.1944 from the aforesaid Company. It was asserted by the plaintiff that it has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties along with other lands purchased under 1944 document all along. During resurvey of the lands, the suit properties were wrongly classified as poramboke without notice to the plaintiff. The said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the year 1997. When the defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for declaration and also for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3.The defendant filed a written statement denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit properties. It was claimed by the defendant that the suit properties were classified as river poramboke and assessed waste land. It was also claimed by the defendant that the suit properties were forcefully encroached by the plaintiff and they have been paying “B” memo charges for the occupation. The defendant specifically denied the title of the plaintiff as well as the plaintiff''s predecessor-in-interest, Mundakayam Valley Rubber Company Limited, to convey the same to the plaintiff. It was also claimed that the survey and the re-settlement had been done in Kanyakumari District

25 years prior to the filing of the suit and all the formalities were scrupulously adhered to. It was also claimed by the defendant that the enjoyment of the plaintiff will not give any right to it, as prohibitory assessment and penalty were levied on the plaintiff. On these pleadings, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.Before the trial Court, the Manager of the plaintiff Company was examined as PW-1 and eight documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff as Ex-A1 to Ex-A8. On behalf of the defendant, no witness was examined and Ex-B1 to Ex-B3 were marked on consent.

5.The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved its title as well as the possession over the suit properties and consequently, decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.55 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kanyakumari. The first appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove its title over the suit properties and consequently, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

6.At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following the substantial questions of law, by order, dated 29.07.2003: “(a)Whether the survey made under the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act without notice to the plaintiff will bind him regarding the classification made and if not whether the plaintiff's title and possession under registered sale deed dated 27.07.1944 will be affected by the classification made by the Government treating the property as poramboke land?

(b)Whether notarised photo copy of original registered sale deed which was exhibited need to be proved