Kerala High Court
Mayinkutty vs Appu Joseph on 17 March, 2025
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
1
2025:KER:22073
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
RSA NO. 935 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT&DECREE DATED 07.08.2018 IN AS NO.54 OF 2015 OF
SUB COURT, MANJERI ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 10.04.2015
IN OS NO.116 OF 2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2:
1 APPU JOSEPH,
AGED 78 YEARS
SON OF VELLARINGAT JOSEPH, VELLARINGAT HOUSE, U P SCHOOL
ROAD, PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM P O, MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676542.
2 TESSAMMA APPU,
AGED 70 YEARS
WIFE OF APPU JOSEPH, VELLARINGAT HOUSE, U P SCHOOL ROAD,
PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM P O, MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676542.
BY ADV R.RAJESH KORMATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS 3,4, AND NOT PARTIES
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:
1 MAYINKUTTY,
AGED 69 YEARS
SON OF MADHURAKARIYAN KUNHARAMU, PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM P O,
MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-
676542.
2 THE KERALA STATE,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2
2025:KER:22073
STATION P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF RESURVEY,
NILAMBUR TALUK, NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679329.
4 SHAMMEEM JUNAID,
AGED 42 YEARS
SON OF MADHURAKARIYAN MAYINKUTTY, PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM P
O, MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-
676542.
5 SULAIKA,
AGED 40 YEARS
SON OF MADHURAKARIYAN MAYINKUTTY, PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM P
O, MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-
676542.
BY ADVS.
R2 AND R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI DENNY DEVASSY
R1 R4 AND R5 BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
SMT.M.A.ZOHRA
SRI.K.MOHAMMED FAISAL NAHA
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2025 ,
ALONG WITH CO.100/2019, THE COURT ON 17.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
3
2025:KER:22073
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CO NO. 100 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.08.2015 IN A.S. 54/2015 ON THE FILES
OF THE COURT SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF MANJERI AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 10.04.2015 IN O.S NO.116 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF MUNSIFF
OF MANJERI
CROSS OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS 1,4 &5 IN RSA:
1 MAYINKUTTY
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. MADHURAKARIYAM KUNHARAMU MAMPAD AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 542.
2 SHAMEEM JUNAID
AGED 42 YEARS
(REPRESENTED BY POWER HOLDER 1ST RESPONDENT), D/O.
MADHURAKARIYAN MAYINKUTTY, MAMPAD AMSOM DESOM, VADAPURAM
P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 542.
3 SULAIKA
AGED 40 YEARS
(REPRESENTED BY POWER HOLDER 1ST RESPONDENT), S/O.
MADHURAKARIYAN MAYINKUTTY, PALAPARMBA, VADAPURAM P.O.,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 542.
BY ADV K.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS1&2/RESPONDENTS2&3:
1 APPU JOSEPH
AGED 78 YEARS
S/O. VELLARINGAT JOSEPH, VELLARINGAT HOUSE, U. P. SCHOOL
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
4
2025:KER:22073
ROAD, PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 542.
2 TESSAMMA APPU
W/O. APPU JOSEPH, VELLARINGAT HOUSE, UP SCHOOL ROAD,
PALAPRAMBA, VADAPURAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676 542.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION
P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.
4 SUPERINTENDENT OF RE-SURVEY
NILAMBOOR TALUK, NILAMBOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
679 329.
R1 AND R2 BY ADV R.RAJESH KORMATH
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.03.2025 , ALONG WITH RSA.935/2018, THE COURT ON 17.03.2025, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
5
2025:KER:22073
CR
JUDGMENT
RSA 935/2018 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.100/2019
1. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants. They are
husband and wife. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a
declaration of his rights over Plaint B schedule property,
mandatory injunction to the defendants 3 and 4, who are the
State and Superintendent of Survey, to correct the mistake in
resurvey by including Plaint A Schedule property as part of
Plaint B schedule property in resurvey records, and permanent
prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from
trespassing into plaint A schedule property and committing
waste therein.
2. Plaint A schedule property was originally shown as 9.7 cents of
land in Sy No.496/1A in Resurvey No.114/3 in Resurvey Block
No.82, and after the Commission Report it was amended as
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
8.94 cents incorporating Resurvey No.114/2 also. Likewise,
Plaint B schedule property was originally shown as 7 acres 12
cents of land in Sy No.496/1A in Resurvey Nos.99 &114/3 in
Resurvey Block No.82, and after Commission Report it was
amended as 7 acres 24.94 cents incorporating Resurvey
No.114/2 also.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that A schedule property is a part of
plaint B schedule property lying on the northern extremity of
plaint B schedule property. The plaintiff derived a larger extent,
including plaint B schedule property as per Exts.A1 and A2
documents of the year 1973. Plaint B schedule property is the
property remaining with the plaintiff after alienations and
relinquishment for road. Plaint B schedule property is having
well defined boundaries on all sides. The property of the
defendants 1 and 2 is situated on the northern side of Plaint B
schedule property. Teak trees standing in a row separates the
plaint B schedule property from the property of defendants 1
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
and 2. The plaint B schedule property and the property of
defendants 1 and 2 are easily distinguishable. The property of
one Achukutty Thomas is also situated on the northern side of
Plaint B schedule property, which is situated on the eastern side
of the property of defendants 1 and 2. There is barbed wire
fencing to separate plaint B schedule property with the property
of Achukutty Thomas. Kayyalas, constructed for the protection
of the property of the defendants 1 and 2 is lying north-south
and its southern end touches the northern boundary of Plaint B
schedule property. In resurvey, Plaint A schedule property is
included in RS No.114/3 in Block No.82, which is the resurvey
number of the property of the defendants 1 and 2 and taking
advantage of the same defendants 1 and 2 are attempting to
trespass into plaint A schedule property. The Plaint B schedule
property excluding A schedule property is included in
RS.No.99/1.
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
4. The defendants 1 and 2 opposed the suit prayers contending,
inter alia, that the Plaint A schedule property is not part of plaint
B schedule property. The identity of the plaint schedule
properties is not clear. The plaintiff has property in RS No.99,
and on the northern side of the plaintiff's property, defendants 1
and 2 have 6.04 acres in RS.No.114/3 as per Exts.B1 to B5 of
the year 1988. The plaintiff is claiming right over a portion of the
said property. There is no boundary separating the properties of
both parties. The allegation that there are teak trees in a row to
separate the property is incorrect. Trees are not boundary.
There are other trees in their property. There is no Kayyala as
boundary in their property. They believe that the claim of the
plaintiff is with respect to the trees belonging to them. The
property in the possession of the plaintiff is replanted in the year
1987. The property belonged to the plaintiff is replanted in the
year 1993. The Resurvey was conducted in the year 1975 and
hence the suit is barred by limitation.
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
5. The defendants 3 and 4 filed Written Statement contending that
the resurvey records came into force with effect from
01.04.1994. The Resurvey was done on 31.07.1975 in
accordance with law. Though the plaintiff had filed petitions
before the Superintendent of Survey, the same were dismissed
since there was boundary dispute.
6. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part, declaring that the
plaintiff is the absolute owner of Plaint B schedule property,
including Plaint A schedule property, and granting an injunction
against defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing and committing
waste in Plaint A schedule property. The relief of mandatory
injunction was denied, finding that the same is barred under
Section 14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act.
7. The defendants 1 and 2 filed the Appeal, and the plaintiff filed
Cross Objection before the First Appellate Court. The First
Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal as well as the Cross
objection.
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
8. The defendants 1 and 2 alone filed the Regular Second Appeal.
This Court admitted the Regular Second Appeal on the following
substantial question of law.
Has not the appellate court erred in confirming the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court when the plaint schedule properties
were not measured and identified with reference to the title
deeds of the parties?
9. The plaintiff filed Cross Objection No.100/2019 challenging the
Decree of the First Appellate Court, confirming the decree
denying the mandatory injunction. The Cross Objection was
admitted without formulating substantial questions of law.
10. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellants,
Sri.Rajesh.R.Kormath, learned counsel for the respondents 1,2
and 5 Sri.M.A.Zohra and the learned Government pleader Sri.
Denny Devassy.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
suit, as framed, is not maintainable. The suit should have been
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
one for the fixation of boundaries. No attempt was made to
identify the plaint schedule properties with reference to the title
deeds of the parties. The plaint schedule properties are not
identified in any of the Plans. Even though the plaintiff admitted
that he sold 45 cents out of the properties derived as per
Exts.A1 and A2, the location of the said property is not
disclosed, and the Sale deed with respect to the same was not
produced. The area admittedly surrendered by the plaintiff for
the road is also not disclosed. The suit is clearly barred as the
suit was filed in the year 2004 and the resurvey was completed
in the year 1975. The Trial Court simply accepted the boundary
on account of the existence of certain trees in the properties.
The property owner on the north-eastern side of the plaintiff's
property, Achukuty Thomas, is a necessary party, and hence,
the suit is bad for no joinder of necessary parties. Learned
counsel concluded the arguments by submitting that the suit
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
being an experimental one to grab the property of the
defendants 1 and 2, it is liable to be dismissed with costs.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the party-
respondents contended that the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are well founded. The
plaint schedule properties have been lying with clear cut
boundaries as found by the Courts. Hence there is no need for
fixation of boundaries. Since the dispute is only regarding Plaint
A schedule property, which is the northern portion of the Plaint
B schedule property, there is no need to measure the property
as per the title documents. The Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court considered the lie and nature of the disputed
Plaint A schedule property and found that it has similarities with
those of the Plaint A schedule property and not with those of the
property of the defendants 1 and 2. The Trial court and the First
Appellate Court found clear cut boundary between the
properties of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 on account
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
of the existence of a row of teak trees, the existence of which is
specifically denied by the defendants 1 and 2. The Advocate
Commissioner has clearly identified the Plaint A schedule
property in the Ext.C7 Plan. Achukutty Thomas is not a
necessary party as there is no dispute between Achukutty
Thomas and the plaintiff. The records would clearly reveal that
a part of plaintiff's property was wrongly included in the
Resurvey number of the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff
was taking all his efforts to correct the mistake in resurvey.
Learned counsel concluded her arguments by submitting that
the defendants 1 and 2 may not be allowed to grab the property
of the plaintiffs taking undue advantage of mistake in resurvey.
The First Appellate Court ought to have allowed Cross objection
granting mandatory injunction to correct the mistake in resurvey.
13. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the boundary
dispute between the parties is to be resolved between them.
The relief of mandatory injunction was rightly denied finding that
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
the same is barred under Section 14 of the Kerala Surveys and
Boundaries Act. It is not liable to be interfered in the Cross
Objection.
14. I have considered the rival contentions.
15. The Plaint schedule properties are claimed to be part of
the property obtained by the plaintiff as per Exts.A1 and A2
documents of the year 1973. As per Exts.A1 and A2 plaintiffs
derived 8.28 acres of land in Sy No.496/1A. The party-
defendants claim that their property is having an extent of 6.04
acres as per Exts.B1 to B5 documents. Originally, all these
properties are situated in Old Survey No.496/1A. Admittedly, the
properties are not identified with reference to title deeds.
Admittedly, the property of the party-defendants is situated on
the northern side of the plaintiff's property. Ext.C5 and C7 Plans
were there before the Court. In both these plans, Plaint A and B
Schedule properties are not referred. The properties are
identified with reference to Resurvey Number. Ext.C5 Plan does
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
not serve any purpose as it does not provide the relevant details
to identify the properties of the parties.
16. In Ext.C7 Plan, the property in the possession of the
plaintiff in RS No.99/1 is shown as 'ABCDEF'. There is no
dispute with respect to this land having an extent of 3.0792
Hectares. Property in possession of the plaintiff near the
property of Achukutty Thomas is shown as 'CHID' having an
extent of 1.71 are equivalent to 4.225 cents in RS.No.114/2. The
party-defendants can not have any claim over this property as
the said plot is abutting the property of Achukutty Thomas and
it is situated in RS No.114/2 in which the party-defendants do
not claim any property. The disputed portion is shown as
'BGHC' in RS No.114/3 having an extent of 1.91 ares equivalent
to 4.720 cents. The northern boundary line of the said plot is
'BGH'. The row of six teak trees are situated in this line. The
southern boundary line of the said plot is 'BC'. This is the Survey
boundary line between RS No.99 and RS.No.114 also. The
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
learned counsel for the appellants much stressed on the point
that non-identification of the properties as per title deeds is fatal
to the case of the plaintiff. If the disputed property is clearly
identified before the Court, the Court can very well consider the
title and possession of the same if sufficient evidence is
available before it. In all cases, it is not necessary to identify the
property with reference to the title deeds. It depends on the facts
and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, both
sides claim that plot 'BGHC' is part of their property. The parties
have clear idea about the identity of the disputed land. Hence,
non-identification of the property with reference to the title deed
and non-disclosure of the details of the assignments and
surrender for the road by the plaintiff are not material factors.
17. With respect to the contention of non-joinder of Achukutty
Thomas, it is seen that plots 'BGHC' having 1.91 ares and
'CHID' having 1.71 ares would make an extent of 3.62 ares
equivalent to 8.945 cents. These two Plots make the Plaint B
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
schedule property of 8.94 cents. The contention of the plaintiff
is that Achukutty Thomas is not having any dispute with the
Plaintiff with respect to the title of 'CHID' Plot. The Advocate
Commissioner has also reported that the said Plot is in the
possession of the plaintiff. In Ext.C6, the Advocate
Commissioner has reported that there is barbed wire fencing
between the property of the plaintiff and the property of
Achukutty Thomas. In these circumstances, the party-
defendants could not raise a contention that there is a non-
joinder of necessary parties on account of the non-impleadment
of Achukutty Thomas as Achukutty Thomas has nothing to do
with the dispute between the plaintiff and the party -defendants
over Plot 'BGHC'.
18. If the 'BGH' line having a row of six teak trees is taken as
the northern boundary of the plaint schedule properties, Plaint
A schedule property shall belong to the plaintiff. If the 'BC' line
running along with the survey line is taken as the northern
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
boundary of the plaint schedule properties, Plaint A schedule
property shall belong to the party- defendants. Since, as per the
old survey, both the properties had been remaining in the same
survey sub division number, there is no meaning in measuring
the properties as per old Survey Plan for identifying the
properties of the respective parties. The boundary of the
properties could not be decided as per survey lines. Admittedly,
no natural boundary is there to separate the properties. The
presence of only a row of teak trees alone is available in that
area. These teak trees are situated on the northern side of Plaint
A schedule property identified by the Advocate Commissioner.
If the row of teak trees is not taken as the northern boundary,
there is nothing to prove the boundary between the properties,
and in such case, without fixation of boundaries in a suit for
fixation of boundaries, the title over the plaint A schedule
property could not be claimed. In such a case, the properties will
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
have to be identified with reference to the title deeds of the
parties to fix the boundary.
19. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued that
man-made boundary cannot be considered to decide the
boundary line and only natural boundary alone should be
considered to decide the boundary line, I am unable to accept
such contention. If there is evidence for age-old man-made
separation between two properties, there is nothing wrong in
accepting the same as a boundary line in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary.
20. Merely because, a portion of the property of the plaintiff is
included in the Resurvey of the party-defendants and remedy
for challenging the same is barred, the party- defendants could
not claim title over such portion. It is a well-settled principle of
law that revenue records cannot confer title. As resurvey
records are also revenue records resurvey also cannot change
title. In the decision of this Court in Ibrahim and Others v.
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
Saythumuhammed and Others [2013(4)KLT 435], it is held
that simply because it was wrongly shown in the survey plan or
the basic tax register that a portion of the property covered by
the title deed stood in the name of another person, that does not
mean that the plaintiff has lost his title to the property nor can it
be presumed, based on such a wrong entry in the revenue
records or plan, that the plaintiff was out of possession of the
property or that the other person in whose name it is registered
could obtain title to the property. In the decision of this Court in
Venugopalan Nair v. Saraswathy Amma [2013(4) KLT 717],
this Court held that only because there are changes in the extent
of the property in the re-survey, that by itself would not confer
title and that even beyond the period of one year after
finalization of resurvey, a suit on title disputing the re-survey is
maintainable. In Cheriyanad Grama Panchayath v. State of
Kerala and Others [2019(5) KHC 699], this Court held that it is
neither permissible nor advisable for the resurvey authorities to
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
refix the boundary line of particular survey under the guise of
resurvey based on possession; that no such power can be
vested with the resurvey authority and hence what is done by
them by refixing the boundary based on possession can only be
considered as without any authority or exceeding the authority
vested with them; that the resurvey authority cannot exercise
the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to fix any boundary based on
possession and that the possession is really a matter to be
decided by a Civil Court. In view of the aforesaid settled legal
proposition, I am of the view that the dispute involved in this suit
cannot be decided on the basis of resurvey records. In other
words, the inclusion of the disputed portion in the resurvey of
the party-defendants alone will not conclude the issue.
21. Now the questions to be considered is whether the row of
teak trees is made for separating the properties of the parties
and is there any indication to show that the disputed portion is
a part of the property of the plaintiff or party- defendants. For
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
answering these questions there is no need to measure the
entire properties of the parties as per their title deeds, especially
when the parties have a clear idea about the disputed portion.
Measurement of the entire properties is required only if it is
found that there is no boundary between the properties of the
parties and boundary is to be fixed in a suit for fixation of
boundaries.
22. The plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint that there
is a row of teak trees to separate the boundary of his property
with the property of the party-defendants. The party-defendants
have specifically pleaded in their Written Statement that there is
no such row of trees. The Advocate Commissioner has
specifically found the existence of a row of teak trees. The 'BGH'
line having row of teak trees and 'HI' line separating the property
of the plaintiff and the property of Achukutty Thomas is in a
straight line. It is difficult to think that a property owner will plant
teak trees in a row inside his property away from the boundary.
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
Such row of teak trees is seen only at one place of the property.
In such a case, the probability is that the teak trees are planted
along with the boundary line to separate the properties of the
plaintiff and the party-defendants. This can only be the possible
conclusion when other boundary marks are absent to separate
the properties of the plaintiff and the party-defendants. In Ext.C5
Report, the Advocate Commissioner has specifically reported
that the plantation direction of two of the four rubber trees in the
disputed area is similar to the plantation direction of rubber trees
on the property of the plaintiff. The platforms for the rubber trees
in the plaintiff's property and the disputed property are found to
be similar. No similarity is reported between the disputed
property and the property of the party-defendants. It would also
strengthen the case of the plaintiff.
23. The party-defendants did not mount to witness box to prove his
case offering himself for cross examination. Both sides cited the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar v.
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
Mankikrao and another [AIR 1999 SC 1441] in support of their
respective arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant
cited the decision to substantiate the point that even if the
defendant does not enter into witness box, still he can raise any
legitimate plea available to him under law to defeat the suit of
the plaintiff. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the party
respondents, it is specifically held in the said decision that
where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and,
states his own case on oath, and does not offer himself to be
cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise
that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a
series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy
Council, making it clear that the question would depend upon
the pleadings of the parties, the nature of the suit, the nature of
the deed, the evidence led by the parties in the suit and other
attending circumstances. Here, the party-defendants could
have made the reasonable explanation of the aforesaid various
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
factors found in favour of the plaintiff, offering themselves for
cross-examination by the plaintiff. No such attempt was made
by the party- defendants. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, the absence of examination of any of the party-defendants
is fatal, and hence adverse inference is to be drawn against the
party-defendants.
24. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos
and another v. Most Rev.Mar Poulose Athanasius and
Others [1954 KLT 385] and the decision of this Court in K. M.
Paul v. K. Pradeep [2006(2) KLT 20] to highlight the settled
principle of law that in a suit based on title, the plaintiff can
succeed only on proof of his title and mere destruction of the
defendant's title carries the plaintiff nowhere. In the case on
hand, the plaintiff has not attempted to destruct the title of the
party-defendants, but only attempted to prove that he has title
and possession over the disputed portion. The party-defendants
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
have not made any attempt to prove their title apart from
producing Exts.B1 to B5.
25. Considering the nature, character, and lie of the disputed
area, I am of the view that the 'BGH' line having a row of teak
trees in Ext.C7 Plan is the boundary separating the plaint
schedule properties from the property of the party-defendants.
There is nothing in the 'BC' line running along with survey line
to show that it is the boundary. The plaint schedule properties
are having well defined boundaries on its northern side
separating from the property of the party-defendants as pleaded
by the plaintiff. When a well-defined boundary is there
separating the plaint schedule property, there is no need to
measure the plaint schedule properties with reference to the title
deeds of the parties. The substantial question of law is
answered in the negative and against the appellants.
26. The plaintiff has established identity, title, and possession
of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff is entitled to a
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
declaration and injunction, and the Trial Court is perfectly
justified in granting the same. I do not find any ground to
interfere with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which
is confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
27. The Cross objection was admitted without formulating any
substantial question of law. It is against the denial of the relief of
mandatory injunction. The mandatory injunction is sought
against defendants 3 and 4, who are the State and
Superintendent of Survey, to correct the mistake in the resurvey
by including Plaint A Schedule property as part of Plaint B
schedule property in resurvey records. It was denied by the Trial
Court finding that the same is barred under Section 14 of the
Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act. It is confirmed by the First
Appellate Court. There is nothing wrong in the said finding. No
substantial Question of law arises in the Cross Objection.
Hence, the Cross Objection is liable to be dismissed.
RSA No.935/2018 &Cross Objection 100/2019
2025:KER:22073
28. The Regular Second Appeal and Cross Objection are
dismissed without costs.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Jma/shg
