GEORGE Vs. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 419/1999 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Wadakkanchery, as well as the appellant in A.S. No. 102/2003 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court No. 1), Thrissur. The above Original Suit was one for recovery of possession on the strength of title with future mesne profit. The 3rd defendant, inter alia, contended that his title and possession over the property sought to be recovered from him is perfected by adverse possession. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit as prayed for, granting recovery of possession. Feeling aggrieved, though the appellant had preferred the above Appeal Suit, the learned District Judge also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the 3rd defendant challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, on various grounds.

(2.) The 3rd defendant filed a written statement contending that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over item No. 3 of 'B' schedule property since 1980 and the said property is lying together as a single plot with his remaining properties. The plaintiffs have to prove their title. The existence of 'B' schedule as narrated in the plaint is also denied. 'B' schedule item No. 3 does not form part of plaintiffs' 'A' schedule property; whereas it forms part of his remaining property which is in his possession since 1980. Alternatively, it is also contended that even if B' schedule item No. 3 belongs to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' right in that property has been lost by adverse possession and limitation, by the long continuous, open and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the 3rd defendant.

(3.) The 1st plaintiff was examined as PW 1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. Defendants were examined as D.Ws. 1 to 3 and Exts. B1 to B7 were marked. The commission report and rough plan were marked as Exts. C1 and C1(a).