KAMALAMMA Vs. SHIBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed under Sec. 100 r/w Order XLII of CPC by the additional respondents 2 to 5 in A.S.127/2008 on the file of the District Court, Alappuzha, who are the legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S.3/2001 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha, against the judgment dtd. 30/11/2013, allowing the above appeal and dismissing the above Suit. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are extracted below : The plaintiff obtained 37.25 cents of landed property comprised in Survey No.335/4/11 of Paravur (old Punnapra) village as item No.1 in Ext.A1 gift deed No.424/75 of SRO, Alappuzha. As per Ext.A2 sale deed, he had sold 13 cents to the 1st defendant and as per Ext.A3, 14 cents was sold to the 2nd defendant from out of the above 37.250 cents. The remaining 10.250 cents is the plaint schedule property. Alleging that, because of some mistake in the re-survey records, the defendants are not permitting him to enjoy the plaint schedule property, he filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The case of the defendants was that though the plaintiff obtained 37.250 cents as per Ext.A1 in the year 1975, portions of the same were utilized for widening the pathway on the southern side and National Highway on the western side, that the remaining property available with the plaintiff was only 27 cents and the above entire 27 cents was sold to defendants 1 and 2 as per Ext.A2 and A3 sale deeds.

(3.) The learned Munsiff, relying upon Ext.C1 and C1(b) Commission report and sketch declared the plaintiff's title over the plaint schedule property. The prayer for recovery of possession and injunction was also granted. However, the 1st Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the Suit. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, the legal representatives of the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal.