ABBAS Vs. ANDI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal involves a question of considerable interest, with regard to the legal consequences of a right to property which includes the foreshore of the sea as one of its boundaries. The facts are as follows:

(2.) THE plaintiffs instituted a suit in the court of the District Munsif of ramanathapuram for a declaration of title, possession and future mesne profits. The defendants appear to be fishermen who own properties to the east and west of the particular item, which is the subject-matter of the present dispute (item 3 ). This item 3 has, according to the title advanced by the plaintiffs, in the trial court, the seashore as its southern boundary. As far as this item was concerned, the defendants allege that they had been using the area which is the subject of dispute for drying fish and for keeping their, nets and the boats used for fishing. They also allege that they had planted some coconut trees, in a small portion of this area. On this aspect, the trial court framed three issues, first two of which related to the title of the plaintiffs and possession within the statutory period, and the third to adverse possession pleaded by the defendants. There was also the fourth issue on the same aspect, namely, whether the encroachment in item 3 is true.

(3.) THE trial court dealt with the facts and evidence elaborately. A Commissioner was also appointed in the suit, and his plan and report were adduced in evidence. Finally, the trial court pointed out that the plaintiffs could not sustain their claim of ownership of the plot south of the fence erected by them, which is practically the foreshore of the sea. Further, the learned District Munsif also emphasised the prior statements of the plaintiff, (D. W. 1) to the effect that item 3 (suit property) was really "ten bagams away from the seashore". Hence, the suit was dismissed with regard to this extent of controversy.