KUNJU AND ORS. Vs. JOHN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defeated plaintiff came up with this second appeal against the concurrent finding rendered by the District Court, Thodupuzha in A.S.No.107 of 2004, dated 16.11.2004, and by the Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha in O.S.No.46 of 1988, dated 28.7.1999.

(2.) The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction against trespass and causing obstruction to the peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property is having an extent of five cents. It is a government forest land. Earlier in the year 1946, 17 acres of land was included in Kaliyar Estate. Subsequently, certain extent of property was given on lease to Kaliyar Karshaka Sangham and they in turn had given different plots to its members and the plaintiff is one of the members who obtained five cents from the above said Karshaka Sangham. Subsequently, Government decided to terminate and withdraw the lease arrangement, which was challenged before this court. This court has directed not to evict the persons who were put in possession of different plots without due process of law. While so, the defendants herein trespassed into the property in possession of the plaintiff scheduled in the plaint and constructed a shed for the purpose of conducting an 'Anganvady', which was resisted by the plaintiff and came up with the suit. At first, the suit was decreed, which was challenged in first appeal and the first appellate court remanded the matter back to the trial court for the purpose of issuing a survey commission. Accordingly, a survey commission was issued at the instance of the plaintiff as per the direction issued by the first appellate court. The commissioner and the surveyor in turn visited the property and prepared Exts.C1 and C1(a) mahazar and measurement plan and reported that the plaintiff is in possession of 5.100 cents of land. It is also reported by the commissioner that the shed constructed for conducting 'Anganvady' is situated outside the plaint schedule property, based on which both the trial court and the first appellate court found that there is no cause of action for the suit. Ultimately the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the abovesaid two decrees, the plaintiff came up with this second appeal.

(3.) Even according to the plaintiff he did not have any title over the property. He came into possession of the property as he was put in possession of that property by the Kaliyar Karshaka Sangham, who claimed a leasehold right over the property. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that subsequently the Government decided to cancel the same and it was challenged before this court. The extent of land possessed by the plaintiff is five cents, which, according to the plaintiff, lying within well defined boundaries. The commissioner who visited the property measured out the property and reported that the actual extent in possession of the plaintiff comes to five cents and an excess land of 100 sq.links. This would prima facie show that the commissioner has identified the four boundaries claimed by the plaintiff regarding his possession and prepared a report showing the extent as five cents + 100 sq.links within the boundary. Now the challenge is against the abovesaid survey plan prepared by the commissioner and the mahazar. Even the plaintiff did not have any case that he is having any survey plan or any authenticated record or authority to show the boundary of the property possessed by him. The only case advanced by the plaintiff is that he was put in possession of five cents of property by Kaliyar Karshaka Sangham. If that be so, there cannot be any reason for rejecting the commissioner's report and the survey plan based on the possession of the plaintiff. The fact that the shed constructed for the purpose of 'Anganvady' is situated outside the boundary of plaint schedule property would itself show that there is no cause of action for the suit. The concurrent finding rendered by both the trial court as well as the first appellate court based on the facts involved hence deserves no interference. The appeal lacks any merits, deserves only dismissal and I do so, but without costs.