KIZHAKKEKARA MAHILA SAMAJAM, KOTTARAKARA, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT RAJALEKHA Vs. KOTTARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP BY ITS SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property measuring 7.75 Ares and the building therein comprised in Re-sy. No. 237/10 of Kattarakkara Village is one owned and possessed by them and that the defendants viz, the local Grama Panchayat, its president and a member are attempting to trespasses into the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff, therefore, sought for a declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property and consequential injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. The trial court though decreed the suit, the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court. Hence, this second appeal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the first respondent Panchayat.

(3.) In the plaint, though it is asserted by the plaintiff that they own the plaint schedule property, they have not disclosed as to how they got the title to the property. The particulars of the title deed of the plaintiff in respect of the property is not mentioned. They have not disclosed the particulars of their title deeds at the time of evidence nor do they produce the same. The appellate court rightly found that in a suit of this nature, it is obligatory for the plaintiff to disclose as to how they obtained title to the property and the suit is seen dismissed reversing the decision of the trial court holding that the plaintiff has not established title to the property.