JOSEPH DEVOOS; SISILY; SEENGAYYAN VINCENT; ANTONY DAS; ALEXANDER; YANTHRIKKAMMA THEYORIS; PANIYAMMA; JOREES THWANINDH; AMBI CHANDRAN; SILUVA; YAGAPPAN SABARIYAKAR; KARIOSE NASRETH; YAGAPPAN SIMON; YON POSKO; FRANCIS SOOSA PILLAI Vs. SOOSAMMA; SALOMI; JANOVA; KATHERINE; MARIYA VICTOR; MARIYA ADOLPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' right over 'A' schedule property measuring 96 cents and for removing the sheds which were unauthorisedly constructed in 'C' schedule property which is covered by the decree in O.S.No.83/1975 and also for a prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from 'A' schedule property. Originally 'A' schedule property is 96 cents of land comprised in R.S.Nos.274/24 and 274/25 of which the old Survey Number was 181/4. The description column in the schedule shows that out of the 96 cents of land 59 cents and another 2.771 cents (thus the total extent is 61.771 cents) and the remaining extent making the total of 96 cents is the 'A' schedule property. In the 'B' schedule three buildings having numbers 7/540, 7/541 and 7/542 are mentioned and they are stated to be the buildings held and possessed by the plaintiffs. In the 'C' schedule 24 thatched huts are shown which are stated to be occupied by defendants 1 to 24. Subsequently 'D' schedule was incorporated by way of amendment which is to the effect that out of 96 cents mentioned in 'A' schedule, 34.498 cents is the sea puramboke and excluding the aforesaid 34.498 cents, the property measuring 61.502 cents in respect of which the right was declared as per the decree in O.S.No.665/95 and the trees therein. But no separate relief is seen sought in respect of 'D' schedule property.

(2.) The first plaintiff (PW1) contends that she was granted 'pattayam' in respect of 59 cents of land in Survey No.274/24 and that the remaining 37 cents of land is sea- coast puramboke lying adjacent to 59 cents and thus she is in possession of a total extent of 96 cents. In the relief portion in the suit, no relief is sought in respect of 'B' schedule and 'D' schedule properties. In the course of the argument, learned counsel for the appellants submits that three buildings referred to in the 'B' schedule are in the possession of the plaintiffs. There is no dispute regarding 'B' schedule buildings. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants have absolutely no right over the plaint schedule property and so, a decree as sought for has to be granted against them.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit contending that the plaintiffs have absolutely no right over the disputed property measuring 37 cents and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief. It is further contended that the property is a sea-coast puramboke and that the defendants have been in possession of the said property.