APPKUTTAN CHETTIYAR Vs. LATHIKADEVI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common appellant in these appeals was the plaintiff in O.S.216/93 and the defendant in OS 220/93 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Varkala. Both the aforesaid suits were for perpetual injunction filed by the appellant and the respondent herein seeking prohibitory injunction against each other. The suits were jointly tried. The Courts below found that the plaint schedule property is not covered by the title deeds of the appellant whereas the same is covered by the settlement deed of 1981 set up by the respondent herein in whom possession was also found. The Courts below also found the existence of a tutorial college run in the property by the defendant. These are all findings of facts from which no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises. It is true that the land in question is a puramboke land and the State was not made a party in both the suits. But it is well settled that possessory rights can be claimed as between persons who assert rival claims over Government land and that in such actions the State need not be a party. The only thing is that the Government will not be bound by any such decrees. Such being the position, the contention that the Government ought to have been a party to the suits not only cuts at the roof of the appellant himself who was the plaintiff in one of the suits, but also is untenable in view of the decisions reported in Vavvakkavu Muslim Thaikkavupally v. Narayanan Purushan, 1991 (2) KLT 477 and Philip and Others v. Skaria and Others, 1987 (1) KLT 213 .