Dated this the 16th day of December 2019

The plaintiff came up with this appeal aggrieved

by the decree and judgment of the First Appellate

Court dismissing a suit for fixation of boundary and

recovery of possession. The suit was originally

decreed by the trial Court, against which an appeal

was preferred before the First appellate Court. The

first appellate Court dismissed the suit based on the

admission made by the plaintiff regarding the

construction of a compound wall on the disputed place

in the year 1984 immediately after the purchase of

the said property under Ext.A3.

2.

The decree granted by the trial Court was

reversed by the first appellate Court, mainly on the

reason that the plaintiff is estopped from

maintaining a suit for recovery of possession as they

have constructed a compound wall in the disputed

place in the year 1984. Hence they are barred by

doctrine of acquiescence. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the appellant that no pleading

was raised in the written statement with respect to

any acquiescence or estoppal.

3.

It is true that there is no pleading anywhere

in the written statement with respect to the doctrine

of estoppel or acquiescence. But the doctrine of

acquiescence should be understood as based on

latches. A gross negligence in doing a particular act

for a long time would attract doctrine of

acquiescence. In the present case in hand, admittedly

it is the plaintiff who has constructed a compound

wall in the disputed place in the year 1984. But it

was submitted that they were forced to construct such

a compound wall because of the objection raised by

the defendant with respect to the dividing boundary.

But at the same time it was admitted by them that

they have constructed a dividing boundary, a

permanent structure, a compound wall, and maintained

the same for a long period from the year 1984 and it

was maintained there till the filing of the suit in

the year 1995 for a period of more than 10 years.

4

Putting up of a permanent structure as that of a

boundary separating the property of the plaintiff

from that of the remaining property, maintaining the

same for a long period of more than 10 years would

attract the doctrine of acquiescence.

4.

The decision relied on by the learned

counsel, drawn by the Apex Court in State of Haryana

Vs. Mukesh Kumar and others (2011 KHC 4876, has no

much application in the instant case. In the present

suit, in fact, the question of adverse possession is

neither raised nor set up as a defence. A division

bench decision of the High Court of Kerala is also

brought to the notice of this Court drawn in Joy

Kuriakose Vs. Kuriakkose (2015 KHC 20 : 2015 (1) KLJ

2017 : 2015 (1) KLT 324 regarding adverse possession.

All these decisions are dealing with the question of

adverse possession and limitation and not dealing

with the rule of latches or doctrine of acquiescence.

Of course in order to perfect a title, a hostile

animus should be exercised openly for a period of 12

years. But that 12 year period cannot be imported in

5

the matter of rule of latches which was governed by

the prudence of an ordinary man and latches if any

committed. Nothing was brought to the notice of this

Court in order to have an interference with the

decree and judgment of first appellate Court.

No other substantial question of law involved.

This appeal fails and is dismissed.

SD/-

P.SOMARAJAN

Nsd

//TRUEC COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

JUDGE