THOMAS Vs. LONAPPAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises some important substantial questions of law. After carefully perusing the appeal memorandum and the records and on hearing the learned counsel for the contesting parties, the substantial questions of law reframed are thus:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri. K.G. Balasubramanian for the appellant, Sri. Sadanantha Prabhu for the 1st respondent and Sri Sheejo Chacko for the 2nd respondent.

(3.) 2Nd defendant in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the respondents. Contentions raised in the plaint in short are as follows: The plaint schedule property belongs to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. No other person has any right, interest or possession over the property. The extent of the property, after measuring it out by a Commissioner, is found to be 6.016 cents. The plaintiff had reduced the property into his possession about 42 years before institution of the suit and put up boundaries. Initially, he had put up a thatched hut in the property. Thereafter, he constructed a tiled house. He is residing in the house with his family. He dug a well too in the property about 25 years ago. That apart, he has improved the property by planting various fruit bearing trees. In recognition of his possessory title over the property, the 2nd respondent (1st defendant) Grama Panchayat had assigned a door number to his house. He has been remitting building tax in respect of the house. From 27.07.1981 onwards, he enjoys electric supply to his house. A ration card is also issued to the plaintiff in his house address. The plaintiff has prescribed title over the property by open, peaceful, long and unobstructed exclusive possession for more than the statutory period. A public road passes through the southern side of the plaint schedule property and the plaint schedule property does not form part of the said road. When the defendants tried to meddle with his enjoyment of the property, the plaintiff approached the trial court for a declaration that he has prescribed title by adverse possession and limitation and also for a prohibitory injunction against the 1st defendant Grama Panchayat from interfering with his possession.