In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove their title; additionally, a party cannot be granted both a mandatory injunction for restoration of property and monetary damages for the same restoration costs, as this constitutes impermissible double recovery.

COMMON JUDGMENT

1.These Second Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decrees made in A.S.Nos.57 and 58 of 2016, dated 08.02.2019, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai, confirming the judgment and decrees passed in O.S.NO.145 of 2004, dated 29.10.2015 and modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.141 of 2004, dated 29.10.2015, on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

2. In S.A.(MD)No.382 of 2021, the appellants are the defendants 1, 10 to 15, 8 to 31. The respondents 1 to 6 / plaintiffs originally filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from tresspassing into the suit property and subsequently amended the plaint claiming the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

3. In S.A.(MD)No.381 of 2021, the appellants are the defendants 1, 2, 11 to 15, 18 to 31. The respondents 1 to 10/plaintiffs filed the suit claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the damages caused along with interest at 6% per annum and costs. O.S.No.145 of 2004:

4. The case of the plaintiffs, canvassed in the amended plaint, in brief is as follows:

(a) The suit property belongs to the first plaintiff, a private Davaswom at Vallavila and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the President and Treasurer of the temple Administrative Committee respectively. The temple was originally established by Vallavilai Arayar Community. There are temple buildings and two school buildings within the suit property. After resurvey, though the property is comprised in R.S.No.597/6, they lie as a single contiguous plot within the well defined boundaries on all the four sides.

(b) The suit B schedule property measuring 1 acre 9.620 cents is a portion of “A” schedule property. “B” schedule property is in the direct possession of the plaintiffs, after surrendering some area to the school. The temple has got patta in its favour and the land tax is paid regularly.

(c) After re-survey, wrong entry has been made in the settlement register by mistake as against the name of the patta holder of the suit property. One Sesu Gnanaprakasam was mentioned by mistake. But neither Sesu Gnanaprakasam nor his ancestors had any manner of right or possession over any portion of the suit property at any point of time. One Fernandis, son of the said Sesu Gnanaprakasam executed a release deed on 18.09.1980 in respect of “A” schedule property vide document No.1931 of 1980 of Kollemcode Sub Registrar office in favour of the then President of the temple Administrative Committee. Hence, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of “A” schedule property as absolute owner. The defendants have no manner of right or possession over any portion of the “A” schedule property.

(d) There is a road on the eastern side of the “A” schedule property and the land in R.S.No.597/C of Kollemcode Village is situated on the east of the said road. The defendants claimed that a portion of R.S.No.597/5C is within the “A” schedule property and on that basis, the defendants are attempting to tresspass into the suit property by demolishing the existing boundaries and temple structures. The defendants and their men made an attempt on 12.07.1997 to tresspass into the suit “A” schedule property and to demolish the existing boundaries, but the same were averted by the timely intervention of the plaintiffs.

Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for perm