YESODHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the dismissal of OS No.306/2012 on the files of Munsiff Court, Alathur and confirmed by the First Appellate Court in AS No.81/2017 on the files of District Court, Palakkad.

(2.) The plaintiffs-appellants filed the suit for mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to correct the entries in the registry of records. According to the plaintiffs, the property originally belonged to late Ponnu, who is the mother of plaintiffs 1 to 6 and grand mother of the 7 th plaintiff. The plaint schedule property was acquired by a registered Sale Deed No.457/1970 of Alathur SRO executed in her favour by the husband's brother late Vasu, who was having half right over the same. Earlier, the plaintiffs filed OS NO.133/2008 for a permanent prohibitory injunction, which was withdrawn with the permission of the Court. In the aforesaid suit, a survey commission was taken out and the Advocate Commissioner filed a report stating that the ownership of the plaint schedule property has been recorded in the name of late Arumughan, father of the 4th defendant. On an application filed on 22/9/2012 before the 2nd defendant to rectify the mistake in the revenue records, no steps were taken. While so, a resurvey was conducted and a mistake crept into revenue records, whereby the ownership of the plaint schedule property has been wrongly recorded in the name of late Arumughan, the father of the 4 th defendant, instead of late Ponnu. Since it was only an inadvertent mistake which has crept into the revenue records, the suit was instituted for mandatory injunction. The defendants 1 to 3 entered appearance and objected to the maintainability of the suit inasmuch as no notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) was issued. The defendants 4 to 5 filed a separate written statement contending that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any reliefs as regards the property, which are in the actual possession and ownership of the defendants. In support of their contention, they relied on Exts.B1 and B2, which are the Purchase Certificate and Jenmam Assignment Deed issued in their favour. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Ext.A1 to A3 series were produced. On behalf of the defendants 4 and 5, Exts.B1 to B13 documents were produced. The report of the Advocate Commissioner and survey plan was produced and marked as Ext.C1 and C1(a). PW1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and DW1 on behalf of the defendants. The Trial Court on consideration of the material documents and pleadings framed the following issues: