KUTTAN NARAYANAN Vs. THOMMAN MATHAYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal which is filed by the defendant has been referred to the Division Bench by Madhavan Nair J. in view of the conflict of decisions on the question of law to be decided.

(2.) The suit is filed by the respondent for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint items on the ground that he was dispossessed by the appellant on 26-12-1955. Item No. 1 covers an extent of 7 cents and item No. 2 is a hut standing in item No. 1. The appellant contended that item No. 1 is a puramboke land belonging to the State and since the respondent has no title he is not competent to recover possession of the items from the appellant. The courts below found that item No. 1 is a poramboke land, but the respondent was in possession of the property until he was dispossessed by the appellant on 26-12-1955. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is not maintainable as the respondent has no title to the property and his only remedy was to have filed a suit under S.9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The Subordinate Judge took the view that the respondent on the basis of his prior possession is entitled to recover possession of the property from the appellant who has no title and who is only a trespasser even apart from S.9 of the Act and thus decreed the suit.

(3.) The sole question for decision in the appeal is whether in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession filed beyond six months from the date of dispossession, the respondent can merely on the strength of his prior possession which has not extended for the full statutory period and ripened into an absolute title, recover possession from the appellant who is a mere trespasser and who has no title.