APPU JOSEPH Vs. MAYINKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants. They are husband and wife. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration of his rights over Plaint B schedule property, mandatory injunction to the defendants 3 and 4, who are the State and Superintendent of Survey, to correct the mistake in resurvey by including Plaint A Schedule property as part of Plaint B schedule property in resurvey records, and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing into plaint A schedule property and committing waste therein.

(2.) Plaint A schedule property was originally shown as 9.7 cents of land in Sy No.496/1A in Resurvey No.114/3 in Resurvey Block No.82, and after the Commission Report it was amended as 8.94 cents incorporating Resurvey No.114/2 also. Likewise, Plaint B schedule property was originally shown as 7 acres 12 cents of land in Sy No.496/1A in Resurvey Nos.99 &114/3 in Resurvey Block No.82, and after Commission Report it was amended as 7 acres 24.94 cents incorporating Resurvey No.114/2 also.

(3.) The case of the Plaintiff is that A schedule property is a part of plaint B schedule property lying on the northern extremity of plaint B schedule property. The plaintiff derived a larger extent, including plaint B schedule property as per Exts.A1 and A2 documents of the year 1973. Plaint B schedule property is the property remaining with the plaintiff after alienations and relinquishment for road. Plaint B schedule property is having well defined boundaries on all sides. The property of the defendants 1 and 2 is situated on the northern side of Plaint B schedule property. Teak trees standing in a row separates the plaint B schedule property from the property of defendants 1 and 2. The plaint B schedule property and the property of defendants 1 and 2 are easily distinguishable. The property of one Achukutty Thomas is also situated on the northern side of Plaint B schedule property, which is situated on the eastern side of the property of defendants 1 and 2. There is barbed wire fencing to separate plaint B schedule property with the property of Achukutty Thomas. Kayyalas, constructed for the protection of the property of the defendants 1 and 2 is lying north-south and its southern end touches the northern boundary of Plaint B schedule property. In resurvey, Plaint A schedule property is included in Rs.No.114/3 in Block No.82, which is the resurvey number of the property of the defendants 1 and 2 and taking advantage of the same defendants 1 and 2 are attempting to trespass into plaint A schedule property. The Plaint B schedule property excluding A schedule property is included in Rs.No.99/1.