ALI HAJI Vs. MANGALPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S. No. 214 of 2007 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod are aggrieved by the dismissal of that suit as confirmed by the Sub Court, Kasaragod in A.S. No.86 of 2008.

(2.) APPELLANTS claimed that the plaint A schedule property belonged to the late Ibrahim, the father of appellants 1 to 4 and grandfather of appellants 5 to 10 as per Exts. A1 and A2, he having taken the said property on lease on 14.04.1958. After death of the father, the appellants are the owners in possession of the plaint A schedule. Plaint B schedule is 16 cents described in the revenue records as river puramboke but claimed to be in the possession and enjoyment of the late Ibrahim from 07.01.1960 onwards. The appellants claimed that they have perfected title over the plaint B schedule by adverse possession and the law of limitation. When the first respondent - local authority attempted to form a road through the plaint B schedule and one Abdulkhader and Andunhi tried to cut down trees from the said property, appellants 1 to 3 filed O.S. No. 396 of 2004 against the said Abdulkhader and O.S. No. 433 of 2004 against the first respondent. The cases were decided in favour of appellants 1 to 3. The first respondent filed appeal as A.S. No. 6 of 2006. The appellant are in possession of the plaint B schedule property. Hence the suit for declaration of title by adverse possession and for injunction.

(3.) THE trial court found that appellants are in possession of the plaint B schedule but the plea of adverse possession was found against. According to the trial court mere length of possession of the plaint B schedule is not sufficient to confer title by adverse possession. The suit was dismissed.