In two regular second appeals, the Kerala High Court dismissed appeals filed by the State against judgments upholding title and possession claims. The Court found plaintiffs successfully proved title via deeds and tax records, while defendants failed to prove the properties were puramboke.
Regular second appeals dismissed; pending interlocutory applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938
RSA.No. 1368 of 2012 (D)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN AS 301/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN OS 238/2004 of PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HASHIR K.M.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
ADDL. RESPONDENTS:
..........2
RSA.No. 1368 of 2012 (D)
2
(THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 AS PER ORDER DATED 20.12.2014 IN IA 2156/2014)
R2, ADDL.R3 - R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM) R2, ADDL.R3 - R7 BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-11-2016, ALONG WITH RSA. 1534/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OKB
K.HARILAL, J.
R.S.A. Nos.1368 & 1534 of 2012
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Since the matters in issue involved in these appeals are one and the same, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of accordingly, even though the parties are different. That apart, both the appeals arose from a common judgment passed by the lower appellate court in A.S. Nos.300/2008 and 301/2008.
RSA.1368 & 1534 of 2012 :2:
under Thandapper No.7189. In the year 1995, the plaintiffs came to know that the said property is shown as Puramboke after resurvey in the village records. Thereupon though the plaintiffs had filed representations before the Village Officer, Tahsildar, District Collector and Survey Superintendent to rectify the mistake crept in resurvey records, no action was taken by the Authorities and finally the plaintiffs were constrained to file the aforesaid suit seeking for a declaration of title and possession and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to rectify the resurvey records showing the plaint schedule property as Puramboke.
RSA.1368 & 1534 of 2012 :3:
for the same. But, in the resurvey, the plaint schedule property is shown as puramboke in the village records. Though they had made representations before the Tahsildar, District Collector and Survey Superintendent, no action had been taken so far. Hence they were constrained to file the said original suit seeking declaration of title and injunction.
RSA.1368 & 1534 of 2012 :4:
the defendants the appellate court re-appreciated the
evidence on record and dismissed the appeals also upholding the findings of the trial court. Thus, the concurrent findings, whereby the defendants' contention stands rejected, are challenged in these appeals.
RSA.1368 & 1534 of 2012 :5:
Rules on the basis of Exts.A3 and A13 to A15 title documents. Exts.A7 and A18 prove that the buildings in those properties belong to them and they have been paying tax for the said buildings from 1968 onwards. The said evidence is further fortified by Exts.A17 and A18 extract of tax assessment from 1968 to 1998. The aforesaid evidence on record proves that the plaintiffs are claiming title and possession on the basis of title deeds and revenue records. Needless to say, the plaintiffs have succeeded in discharging the initial burden to prove their title and possession over the respective properties.
RSA.1368 & 1534 of 2012 :6:
in old Sy.No.258/1 is included in R.S.No.222 in block No.7. It is to be borne in mind that the plaintiffs' properties are comprised in survey No.260/4 and not in Survey No.258/1, according to Exts.A3 and A13 to A15 respectively, and they have title and possession over the said properties. It is not disputed that the said properties under Exts.A3 and A13 to A15 had been mutated under the Transfer of Registry Rules also and they have been paying tax for the said properties.
RSA.1368 & 1534 of 2012 :7:
Vaikom has pointed out the fact that some mistake is seen in resurvey with respect to O.S.No.238/2004. Thus, Exts.A8 and A22 are valid documents, in the possession of the defendants themselves, which will cut the root of the defendant's case that the plaintiffs are holding a portion of thodu puramboke.
RSA.1368 & 1534 of 2012 :8:
consideration in these appeals.
These Regular Second Appeals will stand dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand
closed.
Sd/K.HARILAL, Judge.
okb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint schedule properties fall in the category of thodu puramboke as alleged by defendants.
Whether the lower appellate court erred in appreciating evidence regarding title and possession.
State of Kerala
Jacob Thomas
Aleyamma Kuruvilla
Lincy P. Kuruvilla
Sherly P. Kuruvilla
Remy P. Kuruvilla
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
