IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
RSA NO. 93 OF 2010
AGAINST THE ORDER JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 226/1995 OF
MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM
AGAOMST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN AS 59/2004 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II OF THODUPUZHA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
P.K. PARVATHY, D/O PALIAN,M.P.IX/55, SEVEN VALLEY
LINE, OLD MUNNAR, K.D.H.VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SMT.ANEY PAUL
SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
TATA TEA LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT BISHOP LEFROY ROAD,CALCUTTA AND
REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUNNAR,REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY
GENERAL MANAGER (CORPORATE AFFAIRS) SRI.DAMU,
MUNNAR P.O, K.D.H VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.BINU MATHEW
SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH
SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
SRI.TERRY V.JAMES
SRI.TOM THOMAS KAKKUZHIYIL
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Sathish Ninan, J.
==============================
R.S.A No.93 of 2010
==========================
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
The concurrent decree in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction, is under challenge in this Regular Second Appeal by the defendant.
2. The plaint schedule property has an extent of 30 cents, situated in Survey No.61/6 of KDH village. According to the plaintiff, a larger extent of property including the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Kannan Devan Hills Producing Company Ltd. It was transferred to the plaintiff Company as per Ext A1 Transfer Deed dated 31.12.1976. Alleging trespass by the defendant, the suit has been filed.
3. The defendant filed written statement denying the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. It was contended that the property in question R.S.A No.93 of 2010 -: 2 :- is a purampoke land. Yet another plea was urged that the defendant has perfected title over the property by adverse possession and limitation.
4. The trial court negatived all the three contentions. It was found that the plaintiff has title over the plaint schedule property, that the property has been identified by the Commissioner as per Exts C1 and C2 Reports and C1(a) Plan. On the plea of adverse possession, the evidence was discussed in extenso and the claim was negatived. The defendant was unsuccessful in his appeal before the first appellate court.
5. Heard Smt.Aney Paul, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Sri.Mathews K. Uthuppachan, learned counsel for the respondent on the following Substantial Questions of Law:
(i) Is the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit barred under Section 14 of the Kannan Devan Hills(Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971?R.S.A No.93 of 2010 -: 3 :-
(ii) Is the identification of the plaint schedule property correct?
6. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that, the suit is not maintainable in the light of the express bar under Section 14 of the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as "the Act". Section 14 of the Act reads thus:
"Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is, by or under this Act, required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Government, the Land Board, the Collector or any other officer."
7. On a plain rearing of the Section it admits of no doubt that, the bar of jurisdiction is only with respect to the matters which are required under the Act to be settled by the Government, Land Board or other officer. The present suit on title, in respect of the property of the plaintiff alleged to have been R.S.A No.93 of 2010 -: 4 :- trespassed upon by the defendant, will not fall within the scope of Section 14 referred to above. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. It is held accordingly.
8. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, the land in question is a purampoke land and that the plaintiff does not have title over the same, a reading of the written statement reveals that there is no specific contention in the said regard. However, it is contended that consequent on the vesting under the Act, the lands were vested in the Government, and that there is no evidence that the plaint schedule property was restored back to the plaintiff or its predecessor.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent took me through Exts A3 and A5 to show that, from out of the property in Survey No.61/6-1 an extent of 93.74 Acres originally vested with the Government by virtue of the Act, but that therefrom, an extent of 88.74 Acres were R.S.A No.93 of 2010 -: 5 :- restored to the Company. Ext A3 indicates that only an extent of 5 Acres were retained by the Government. The property was identified by a Commissioner with the assistance of a Surveyor. The Surveyor located the properties based on revenue records. No purampoke was identified within the property located. PW1 has deposed that the land vested with the Government is situated far away from the plaint schedule property. The trial court has considered the evidence regarding identification and has found that the identification done by the Commissioner is proper. No material could be brought to the notice of this Court to show otherwise. It could only be concluded that plaint schedule property has been properly identified and that the plaintiff has title over the plaint schedule property.
10. Though the finding on the plea of adverse possession is challenged in the memorandum of appeal, no contention in the said regard was urged. Be that as R.S.A No.93 of 2010 -: 6 :- it may, the courts below have concurrently appreciated the oral evidence and the circumstances involved and found that the plea of adverse possession is baseless. The Courts appreciated the fact that the defendant's parents were employees of the plaintiff Company. The finding on adverse possession is a pure finding of fact. The challenge against the same is not liable to be entertained.
11. On the above discussions it could only be concluded that there is no merit in the Appeal and the same is only to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge vdv