SUKUMARN Vs. C BABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S No. 1057 of 1989 on the file of Principal Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the Appellant. Defendants are the Respondents. Appellant instituted a suit seeking a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction. Plaint A schedule property is 10 cents in Survey No. 1702/1 in Pangappara Village of Kazhakuttom Sub District, Thiruvananthapuram. Plaint B schedule property is 3.375 cents, being part of the Plaint A schedule property. According to the Appellant, plaint A schedule property belong to him under Ext.A1 sale deed executed by Punnose and he has absolute title to the plaint A schedule property and first Respondent is his sister and second Respondent is the husband. Appellant was serving in military. Taking advantage of his absence, Respondents trespassed into the plaint B schedule property and constructed a building therein and is residing there. It is contended that they have no right or title to the plaint B schedule property and hence Appellant is entitled to recover the possession on the strength of title. Respondents resisted the suit contending that Appellant has no title to the plaint B schedule property and the plaint B schedule property never belonged to Punnose and hence the Appellant is not entitled to the decree sought for.

(2.) Learned Munsiff on evidence of PW1 to 3, DW1, Exts.A1 to A4, B1 to B5 and C1 and C1(a) dismissed the suit holding that Appellant did not established his title. Appellant challenged the judgment before District Court, Thiruvananthapuram as A.S No. 177 of 1995. The learned Additional District Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the findings of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal. Second appeal is admitted formulating the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Respondents were heard.