C K MUSTHAFA HAJI Vs. PALLICHALIL KUNHAMINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.22/2001 who is defendant in O.S.714/2000 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Kannur is the appellant. R.S.A.127/2011 is filed challenging the concurrent decree and judgment in O.S.22/2001. R.S.A.128/2011 is filed against concurrent decree and judgment in O.S.714/2000. O.S.714/2000 was filed by first respondent seeking a decree for injunction and recovery of possession of plaint B schedule property contending that plaint B schedule property is a portion of plaint A schedule property, which was trespassed by the appellant. It is submitted that S.M.Proceedings No.262/1996 was initiated in his favour as he claimed 6= cents of land and Land Tribunal found that he is entitled to only 1 cent and that order was challenged before Appellate Authority as well as High Court and claim of the appellant over the excess extent was rejected and thereafter appellant trespassed into the plaint B schedule property and therefore, a decree of recovery of possession of plaint B schedule property and permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of remaining part of plaint A schedule property was sought. Appellant resisted the suit contending that first respondent has no right or title to the property in his possession and the property belonging to the appellant is not 1 cent but 6= cents, as is clear from the documents and therefore, first respondent is not entitled to the decree for recovery of possession or injunction.

(2.) APPELLANT filed O.S.22/2001 seeking declaration of title to plaint schedule property which is described as 6= cents contending that property originally belonged to Thekke Pallakandi Androotty as per registered deed No.829/74 of SRO, Anjarakkandy and that right was obtained by the appellant and appellant has title to the entire 6= cents of property and the respondents have no right over the same. APPELLANT sought declaration of his title and injunction.

(3.) ARGUMENT of the learned counsel is that though courts below found that appellant has no right or title to 6= cents of property, the said finding is not based on the evidence and when Ext.B1 title deed establishes that the property obtained is described in six feet koles and extent if calculated is 6= cents, courts below should have found that appellant has title to the said property. It is therefore argued that judgments of courts below are to be set aside.