SUNIL Vs. ADDITIONAL THAHASILDAR, KOLLAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.A.Jani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Priya Shanavas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It is stated that 10.50 cents of property comprised in Old Survey No.7559/1 of Thrikkadavoor Village, Kollam Taluk, Kollam Revenue District and a building situated thereon and an extent of 2 cents of property comprised in Old Survey No.7561 and an extent of 12 cents of property comprised in Old Survey No.7561 of the same Village and Taluk is the subject matter of the present writ petition. The petitioner traces his title through his paternal great grandfather Late Govindan who passed away in the year 1971 (1146 M.E.) at the age of 117. The petitioner is also stated to be one of the grand children of the said predecessor and that the petitioner claims to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of the subject property. That while the petitioner and his mother were so holding absolute and unopposed possession of property. Some of the other grand children of the said predecessor had secured two documents, viz Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.1360 of 1985 dated 26.7.1985 and Ext.P-2 registered sale deed No.184 of 1982 dated 28.1.1982 , both of Anchalumoodu SRO, and had instituted Ext.P-3 Original Suit O.S.No.593 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Kollam and had endeavored to obtain title and possession of subject property. In Ext.P-4 written statement filed in Ext.P-3 Original Suit O.S.No.593 of 1994, the writ petitioner had claimed title by adverse possession and that as per Ext.P-5 judgment dated 28.2.2003 rendered by the Sub Court, Kollam in O.S.No.593 of 1994, the legal validity of Exts.P-1 & P-2 deeds were found against the plaintiffs therein and that in paragraph 20 of Ext.P-5 judgment dated 28.2.2003 in Original Suit O.S.No.593 of 1994, the Sub Court, Kollam had also found that the petitioner is having absolute possession of the said property. Ext.P-5 judgment in the Original Suit was challenged by the defeated parties by preferring First Appeal as RFA.No.270 of 2004 before this Court and that this Court has now passed Ext.P-6 judgment dated 9.6.2016 dismissing RFA.No.270 of 2004, which according to the petitioner is in favour of the petitioner and against his rival claimants and that Ext.P-5 judgment has been upheld by this Court in Ext.P-6 judgment etc.