DEVASSY Vs. KORTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute relates to 40 cents of land, which is a puramboke land. As per the Government order dated 30.03.1979, the land was ordered to be transferred to Koratty Grama Panchayat. The property is situated on the southern side of a school compound. The land for establishment of the school was provided by the Government it was found that a portion of that land was in the possession of encroachers. To facilitate rehabilitation of those encroachers, the land in question was transferred to the Panchyath. Possession of the property was given to the Panchayat on 09.12.1986. On 30.10.1986, the Panchyat had paid a sum of Rs. 8656-50/- to the Government as the value of the puraboke land.

(2.) The appellant instituted the suit, O.S.No.19 of 1990 on the file of the count of the Munsiff, Irinjalakkuda, against Koratty Grama Panchayath praying for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or form cutting and removing the trees or form cutting open a pathway through the property. There are tow items in the plaint schedule, vis, A and B schedule. Plaint A schedule property, having an extent of 2 acres 16 cents belongs to the plaintiff as per the allotment made to him under Ext.A1 partition deed of the year 1960. There is no dispute regarding the title and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint A schedule property. The plaint B schedule property is the disputed property, having an extent of 40 cents, lying on the northern side of the plaint A schedule property and on the southern side of the school compound. According to the plaintiff, for the last 46 years as on the date of the institution of the suit, he and his predecessor in interest were in continuous, up-interrupted and peaceful possession of the plaint B schedule property and thus he has perfected title by adverse possession. On the basis of such adverse possession, the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to get an injunction restraining the Panchayath from entering into the property or from committing any of the acts complained of.

(3.) The contention of adverse possession is met by the defendant Panchayath by taking recourse to the Government Order by which the puramboke land was allotted to the Panchayath and the proceedings by which the Panchayath paid the consideration on 30.10.1986 and the act of handing over of possession of the property to the Panchayath on 09.12.1986. The Panchayath contended that the necessary ingredients to constitute a plea of adverse possession are lacking in the case.