SANKARA PILLAI Vs. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the 2nd defendant and arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of property on ground of trespass.

(2.) The dispute properties are denoted by the two schedules A and B attached to the plaint. They form separate portions of a single Sub No. 100 in minor circuit No. 1 of the Perinad Pakuthy in Quilon Taluk. This Sub No. 100 was originally Kayal poramboke and was registered in the name of the plaintiff's ancestor in 1091. Besides the Sub No. 100 the plaintiff owned three other Sub Nos. 69, 77 and 101/B all lying in one stretch. In or about 1109 the plaintiff applied before and got the Revenue authorities to demarcate all these Sub Numbers, except as regards Sub No. 100 which they felt themselves unable to carry out for want of records. The plaintiff thereupon approached Government with the result that the entire minor-circuit was surveyed when it was found that only 7 out of the 35 cents of the Sub No. 100 was available at spot and in plaintiff's possession for the rest and there was some over - lapping of Sub No. 100 with Sub No. 236 which was registered in 1102 in favour of the 1st defendant's karnavan and which later had devolved on the 1st defendant. And as there was room to suspect some irregularity in the registry proceedings relating to this Sub No. 236, the Surveyor demarcated Sub No. 100 by including along with the 7 cents in plaintiff's hands a 7 cents area of unregistered Kayal land in the unauthorised occupation of the first defendant and situate to the west of Sub No. 236 and another 21 cents from the adjoining open Kayal so as to make up its original 35 cents. In doing so the Surveyor was only following R.15 of the rules governing Puthuval Survey operations whereby the deficit in a registered area is made good from unregistered land adjoining it. The Head Surveyor before whom the matter went up approved the above demarcation by his order dated 29-3-1122 and filed in the case as Ext. T. The plaintiff was dissatisfied and took the question in appeal before the Survey Superintendent who however confirmed Ext. T. Order, except for a variation in the allotment of unregistered land under the Rule 15. That is to say he reduced the unregistered land taken from the 1st defendant to 3 1/2 cents, he freshly took 13 1/2 cents from other unregistered land in unauthorised occupation of the 2nd defendant and touching his Sub No. 237 and made up the balance still remaining of 11 cents, from the open Kayal. This order of the Survey Superintendent is dated 21-1-1123 and is filed as Ext. W. The plaintiff's Sub No. 100 thus stood covered by the letter A B C D E F G H in the plan attached to Ext. W of which a sketch was attached to the plaint. It was the plaintiff's case that the defendants 1 and 2 trespassed upon the A and B schedule properties early in 1121 and were keeping the plaintiff out of her rightful possession. She laid this suit accordingly on 24-2-1123 for declaration of her title and recovery of possession with mesne profits. The fourth defendant was impleaded as in possession under the first defendant.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2 by separate written statements, on the basis that the disputed plots were included in their own registered holdings and were not comprised in the plaintiff's Sub No. 100. Any how they had been in respective possession for more than the statutory period as against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's title, if any, was lost by adverse possession and limitation.