KARUNAKARAN NAIR Vs. KARODE PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second plaintiff is the appellant. He and his father (first plaintiff) filed the suit when the defendant Panchayat attempted to demolish the building in C schedule property pursuant to Ext.A3 notice. Contention of the plaintiffs is that they are in possession of plaint C schedule property which lies contiguous to A and B schedule properties, that they have put up a building there and that the defendant Panchayat has no right to dispossess them. Defendant Panchayat filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs have no manner of right over plaint C schedule property and that it has vested with the Panchayat as provided under S.82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act.

(2.) The Trial Court decreed the suit. In the appeal filed by the Panchayat the Sub Judge upheld the injunction granted by the Trial Court restraining the Panchayat from trespassing into the plaint C schedule property. But the Sub Judge made it clear that the decree will not in any way affect the right of the Panchayat to take appropriate steps as provided under the law for evicting the plaintiffs from the property.

(3.) Contention of the plaintiffs is that the Sub Judge grossly erred in passing the impugned judgment overlooking the fact that the property had never vested with the Panchayat. It is contended that plaint C schedule property is not a tank coming within the ambit of S.82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act and therefore it can never be held that it has vested with the Panchayat.