MARIYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 32/80 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod. Respondents - State of Kerala and Special Tahsildar (Land Assignment) Kasaragod are the defendants in the suit. The suit instituted by the appellant is one for declaration of title over plaint B Schedule property one for declaration of title over plaint B schedule property and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly evicting the appellant therefrom.

(2.) The plaint averments are as follows: Plaint A schedule property belonged to late Kunhappu, the husband of the appellant which he purchased as per Ext. Al registered sale deed. B schedule property lies on the east of item one of the plaint A schedule. The appellant and her husband came into possession of the B schedule property on 1.2.1949. The definite case set up by the plaintiff is that plaint A and B schedule properties were in me absolute possession and enjoyment of the appellant and her husband from 1949 onwards. Consequent on the death of her husband in 1956, the appellant continued in possession and enjoyment of the plaint A and B schedule properties. The appellant and her husband have been in enjoyment of the B schedule property peacefully and uninterrupted claiming a hostile title adverse to the respondents for more than 30 years and they have used the plaint B schedule property for drying paddy, for stalking hay, for cultivation of vegetables and fugitive crops and for other like purposes. They have also laid a road 20 ft. wide, leading from the National Highway to the plaint A schedule property through item 1 of the plaint B schedule property. The suit was necessitated on account of steps taken by the defendants to forcibly evict the appellant Respondents resisted the suit contending inter alia that A and B schedule properties are separated by compound walls, that item one of B Schedule (in R.S. No. 107/1A) was barren rocky land touching the National Highway at Chattanchal and free of any encroachment till 17.11.1979, that on 18.11.1979 the appellant's son encroached into the land, enclosed the property and planted 50 coconut plants on that day itself, that the appellant or her husband have not been in possession as contended, that consequent on the objection of the encroachment by the public, the Government rejected me request of the appellant's son for assignment on 7.11.1979, that thereupon orders were passed by the 2nd defendant on 21.11.1979 under S.11(3) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act directing the appellant's son to vacate the land, that on 4.12.1979 the Asst. Collector, Kasaragod dismissed the appeal, that on 14.1.1980 the District Collector dismissed the revision therefrom, that on 15.1.1980, the public dismantled the laterite stone enclosure, that the Village Officer, Thekkil removed the encroachment and took possession of the land on behalf of the Government and that the suit is barred under S.20 and 20A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. It was also stated that against the order of the District Collector dated 14.1.1980 the appellant's son has filed O.P. No. 221/80 before this Court which has since been disposed of.

(3.) The evidence in this case consists of Exts. A1 to A4 and PW 1 to PW 3 on the side of the plaintiff and Exts. B1 to B6 and DW1 to DW3 for the defendants. Exts. C1 to C3 were also marked.