MATHAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised for consideration in this appeal related to the ownership of a piece of land formed as a result of a river changing its course. Since the question raised was found to he of public importance, the Second Appeal was referred for decision by a Division Bench. It is thus the Second Appeal has come up before us for consideration.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the question can be summarised thus: THE river Manimalayar, before it assumed its present course, flowed over the plaint schedule property bearing survey No. 87/1c in Nedumpram village, 82 cents in extent. It then formed part of the river bed at that point. THE plaintiffs' father was holding lands on both sides of the river when it was flowing over the plaint schedule property. Thus on the west, Survey nos. 197/22 to 27 of Thalavady village and on the east Survey Nos. 243/23 & 24 of Nedumpram village were held by the plaintiffs' father.

(3.) IN the plaint even though adverse possession was the main ground alleged for claiming title, the plaintiffs have also averred in para. 4 of the plaint that they are entitled to the plaint schedule property in law and equity taking into consideration the fact that as a direct result of the change in the course of the river they have lost large areas of land on the western side of the plaint schedule property.