PENNAMMA VALLY Vs. ACHUTHAN UNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the decision of a learned Judge of this Court reversing the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing the suit filed by the respondent. The decision of the learned Judge is reported in Achuthan Unni v. Vally, 1962 KLT. 1010.

(2.) THE facts relevant for deciding this appeal are stated below. THE respondent filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint item alleging dispossession by appellants 1 and 2 by their trespassing into the plaint item in the beginning of Medom 1124. THE first appellant is the wife of the second appellant. THE respondent is the owner of the properties comprised in survey Nos. 391/7, 391/8 and 391/9. Survey No. 391/7 lies to the south of survey No. 391/9. THE second appellant is the owner of survey No. 391/10 which lies to the west of survey Nos. 391/7 and 391/9. THE first appellant is the lessee in possession of survey No. 391/6 which lies to the south of survey No. 391/7. THE portion alleged to have been trespassed is along the western and the southern boundaries of the respondent's properties comprised in survey Nos. 391/9 and 391/7. THE area trespassed into is about 1 and 1/8 cents of land in extent.

(3.) THE appellants' advocate admits that the title to survey Nos. 391/7 and 391/9 is with the respondent and that the plaint item forms part of these two survey numbers. But he contended that since the suit is in ejectment the burden is on the respondent to prove a subsisting title and that the view taken by the learned Judge that the appellants have to prove their possession for a period of 12 years prior to the date of the suit is not correct.