PULIKKAL PATHUMMA UMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, Kalpetta in O.S. No. 593 of 2007 as confirmed by the learned Sub Judge, Sulthan Bathery in A.S. No. 95 of 2003. Appellant claimed that herself and one Abdurahimankutty acquired title and possession of Muthuthala estate of which the suit property (allegedly) 4.25 Acres in resurvey No. 186/3 forms part from M/s.Piercelesilie Company (for short, "the Company") as per the original of Ext.B5, assignment deed, the company having acquired right over the said estate as per patta No. 69. While so, the said Abdurahimankutty released his right over the entire property to the appellant as per Ext.A3, release deed. It is the further case of appellant that as requested by the respondents, the PWD was allowed to occupy the buildings in the suit property which were constructed by the company in the suit property. Appellant prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction against respondents, their officials and others trespassing into the suit property, committing waste thereon or interfering with appellant's possession and enjoyment of the suit property or dispossessing the appellant from the said property.

(2.) Respondents denied title and possession claimed by the appellant over the suit property and contended that the suit property is unassessed land (UA land) forming part of government puramboke and comprised in survey 186/3. They denied that the buildings in the suit property were put up by the company. Instead, respondents claimed that PWD constructed the buildings in the suit property for its purposes.

(3.) Trial court held that appellant was not able to prove any right or interest in the suit property and that even if appellant is in possession she is only a trespasser and hence the prayer for injunction cannot be granted. First appellate court agreed with that view and dismissed the appeal. Hence the second appeal urging the following substantial questions of law.