RADHAKRISHNAN KARTHAV Vs. NABEESA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S.No.16/2006 as per judgment dtd. 31/1/2012 by the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor, as confirmed by the first appellate court (Sub Court, Perumbavoor) in A.S.No.47/2012 by judgment dtd. 23/8/2013.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

(3.) The defendants entered appearance and contested the claim of the plaintiffs by filing a written statement, wherein it was contended that the plaintiffs have not stated the extent of the property acquired by the Government for development of the M.C. Road. It was further contended that in the rear side of the defendants' building, there is vacant land having an extent of 4 sq.metres. The attempt of the plaintiffs is to obtain possession of that property. The title of the property was traced through the document of the year 1966 by which the father of the 1st defendant obtained 32 sq. metres of property in old survey No.256/14/4 and 256/14C/2. It was further contended that in the year 1972, Kunjahammed, the father of the 1st defendant, gifted that property to his wife-Sabiyu, son-Anvar and daughterNabeesu (1st defendant) as per Gift Deed No.858/72 of SRO, Perumbavoor. Thereafter, in the year 1991, the properties were partitioned among the aforesaid three persons and the 1st defendant obtained 52 sq. metres of property and the shop rooms therein. Out of the 52 sq. metres of property, 40 sq. metres of property is entered in re-survey No.5 of Block No.78 and the remaining 12 sq. metres of property in re-survey No.4 of Block No.78. When re-survey was conducted, 12 sq. metres of property in re-survey No.4 was incorrectly entered in the thandapper account of the 7th plaintiff, and accordingly, a complaint was lodged before the re-survey adalat and the same was corrected by the revenue authorities. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed.