POULOSE Vs. THRIKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda in O.S.745/95. The suit is one for recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and for damages. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are stated as follows. The plaintiff by virtue of two assignment deeds has obtained 14 cents of property and out of this 14 cents he had originally executed a document with respect to 3 cents in favour of P2 and later that has come into possession of the 3rd plaintiff. The first defendant is the Panchayath and defendants 2 to 4 are said to be members of Njellur Temple Road Development Samithy. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the property and even at the time of purchase he was having more extent than 14 cents and so in order to widen the pathway which is situated on the western side of his property he had given some land. Thereafter the Panchayath with the connivance of defendants 2 to 4 had trespassed into the property of the plaintiff, demolished the wall and the sunshade and caused damages. According to the plaintiff the understanding was that other than the property wherein the building is situated, from the rest of the property some land can be given for the purpose of widening of the road with the specific understanding that equal extent should be acquired from both the sides so that no hardship is caused to anybody. Under the leadership of the Secretary of the Panchayath defendants 2 to 4 and others came at 12 noon on the unfortunate day and had marked places. At 8 p.m. on the same day they had trespassed and demolished and thereby had caused damages to a tune of Rs.25,000/- and defendants had reduced that land into their possession which has to be recovered.

(2.) The first defendant would contend that the Panchayath had not trespassed into any of the property and the widening of the road has been done in the area which has been given to the Panchayath for the widening of the road by the plaintiff. Defendants 2 to 4 also would contend that they had not committed any mischief and they cannot be held liable for damages.

(3.) In the trial Court PWs.1 to 5 and DWs.1 and 2 were examined. Exts.A1 to A10 and B1, C1 and C1(a) were marked. On an analysis of the evidence the trial court did not grant a decree and so dissatisfied with the same the plaintiff has come up in appeal.