Dismissed

Shanmughan.M.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Feb 2020RSA/80/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the concurrent dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and injunction based on adverse possession against the State of Kerala. The Supreme Court reiterated that claims of adverse possession against the State require a very high degree of proof. The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to show that the disputed 'C' schedule property was part of the settled 'A' and

What did the court decide?

The second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the decree of the courts below was upheld.

Shanmughan.M.P Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

RSA.No.80 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2018 IN AS NO.37/2015 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS NO.486/2010 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

¶7

APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

SHANMUGHAN.M.P, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. PAPPUKUTTAN, MUKKIL HOUSE, MATTOR, VATTAPPARAMBU, KALADY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 579.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 001.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030.

¶13

3 THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 101.

¶14

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MATTOOR VILLAGE, KALADY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 683 574.

¶15

RSA.No.80 OF 2019 -2-

¶16

5 SOMAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN, MALIYEKKAL, VATTAPARAMBU BHAGOM, MATTOOR KARA, MATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 579. R1 BY P.M.SATHEESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = RSA No.80 of 2019

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2020

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Faced with concurrent dismissal of the suit for declaration of title by adverse possession and injunction, the plaintiff is in appeal.

¶23

Heard learned counsel Sri.Dinesh Mathew J. Murikan on behalf of the appellant, on admission.

¶24

The plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties belong to the plaintiff as per Ext.A1 settlement deed of the year 1988. The plaint 'C' schedule having an extent of 4.5 cents which is a “puramboke land” is claimed to be lying as part and parcel of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, he has prescribed title over the plaint 'C' schedule.

¶25

The courts below have concurrently held against the claim of adverse possession.

¶26

Law is well settled that when a claim of adverse possession is made against Government, the courts need to keep in mind that it is not possible

¶27

RSA No.80 of 2019

¶28

:- 2 :-

¶29

for the State and its instrumentalities to keep every day vigil over the vast extent of open land owned by them, of which they are public trustees. Very high degree of proof is to be insisted upon in such claims of adverse possession against the State. [See Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah & Anr. 2010 (2) SCC 461 ; State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (dead through the Lrs.) 2000 (5) SCC 652 ; A. A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors . 2007 (7) SCC 482 and R. Hanumaiah & Anr. v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department and Ors. 2010 (5) SCC 203) ].

¶30

In the case at hand, all that the plaintiff claimed was that the plaint 'C' schedule property was also kept under his cultivation and enjoyment along with plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties in continuation of his predecessor. The courts below noticed that no steps were taken by the plaintiff to ascertain the nature of cultivation in the 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties to find that they are similar and of the same age. The

¶31

RSA No.80 of 2019

¶32

:- 3 :-

¶33

Commissioner deputed in the suit noted the vegetation in the 'C' schedule, but was not called upon to compare with the one existing in the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Commissioner noticed that the trees standing in the 'C' schedule appear to be of wild growth and not as cultivated. Even otherwise, mere planting of trees, if at all any, by the plaintiff will not by itself substantiate a claim of adverse possession. There is no material whatsoever to find that the property was being held adversely by the plaintiff against the State.

¶34

The decree and judgment of the courts below warrant no interference. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this second appeal. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶37

kns/-

¶38

//True Copy//

Shanmughan.M.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanmughan.M.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheeba Vasudevan Vs Gopi

Santha @ Santhakumari Vs Neelakantan Namboodiripad

P.P.Krishnan Vs Vasanthi.P.P.

Parvathy Vs Chamiyar

Sunitha Vs Ktdc Hotels and Resorts Ltd.

K.K.Jayaprakash, Vs D.K. Rajani