AVARA HAJI Vs. VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.25 of 1997 of the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Mannarkkad is aggrieved by the dismissal of that suit as confirmed by the learned Sub Judge, Ottapalam in A.S.No.11 of 2006.

(2.) APPELLANT/plaintiff prayed for a declaration that plaint B schedule is not a burial ground and for prohibitory injunction. The case of the appellant is that plaint A schedule items 1 to 3 belonged in jenm to Keezhillath Janaki Amma and was acquired by the appellant as per Ext.A1, assignment deed No.751 of 1953, followed by his obtaining purchase certificate No.1207 of 1975 for the 1.82 acres in S.M.proceedings No.5653 of 1975. Ext.A2 series are the purchase certificates. Ext.A4 is produced to show that appellant is paying revenue for the property. According to the appellant, there is a pathway on the western side of items 1 and 2 and east of item 3 which is covered by Ext.A1. That pathway was later formed into a road with six feet wide space surrendered from item 3 of the plaint schedule. Appellant has constructed a building in items 1 and 2 about 20 years back and a compound wall leaving 30 cents outside that compound wall (which is described as plaint B schedule). According to the appellant, the said 30 cents form part of items 1 and 2 covered by Ext.A1. Respondents made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short, "the RDO") claiming the plaint B schedule as their burial ground. Appellant contends that plaint B schedule is not a burial ground and prayed for declaration and injunction as prayed for.

(3.) IT is argued that there is no evidence to show that plaint B schedule is a burial ground. Nor have the respondents obtained permission from the local authority to use the plaint B schedule as a burial ground. Learned counsel also challenged finding of the courts below that plaint B schedule is not part of the plaint A schedule.