ABDUL RASHEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of prescriptive title and prohibitory injunction against trespass, are the appellants. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The lower appellate court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit.

(2.) The plaint 'A' schedule property has an extent of 12 Ares and 15 Sq. metres equivalent to 30 cents situated in Kottankara village. The plaint 'B' schedule is a building (saw mill) situated in the plaint 'A' schedule property. The plaint 'A' schedule property is bounded on the east by the National Highway, on the south by Railway and PWD puramboke, on the west by Railway line and on the North by a Village road. According to the plaintiffs, 15 cents of property from out of the plaint schedule was in the possession of Moideen Kunju, the father-in-law of Sulaiman Kunju and the maternal grand father of the plaintiffs even prior to the year 1936. In the year 1950, Moideen Kunju transferred possession of the property to the plaintiff's father Sulaiman Kunju. Along with the property he took possession of the adjoining 15 cents of puramboke, thus making the total extent in his possession at 30 cents. He put up boundary fence on all the four sides of the property. A saw mill was erected in the property. The property has been in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and predecessor. The reason for the suit is Ext.A14 notice dated 20.06.2017 issued by the second defendant demanding vacant possession, alleging encroachment into puramboke. The suit is filed for declaration of title over the plaint 'B' schedule building and for declaration of prescriptive title over the plaint 'A' schedule property. There is a further relief for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property.

(3.) The defendants denied the claim of prescriptive title and alleged that the plaintiffs are mere squatters in the plaint schedule property. It was contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, Kerala Highway Protection Act and also the National Highways Act . They prayed for dismissal of the suit.