IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 RSA.No. 826 of 2011() --------------------- AS.68/2000 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.309/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------- SAINABA BEEVI, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.AISHA BEEVI, RESIDING AT OODUPURAKKAL KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, MUSLIM STREET, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SRI.M.SUNIL SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY OFFICER, DIRECTOR SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY (RE-SURVEY), COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RE-SURVEY, CLOCK TOWER JUNCTION, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 5. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J ........................................... RSA No.826 of 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.309 of 1996 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kottarakara is the appellant. Defendants are the respondents. Suit was instituted claiming a decree for declaration of title, possession and prohibitory and mandatory injunction. Appellant is claiming title to the plaint schedule property having an extent of 1.176 ares in resurvey No.76/33 of Block No.22 of Kottarakara Village contending that he obtained the property under Ext.A4 gift deed 2227/1986 and since then he has been in possession of the property and at the time of resurvey, a mistake was committed and instead of 1.176 ares, the property was shown as 1.5 cents and therefore appellant applied for resurvey and ALC No.2454/90 was pending before the Superintendent of Resurvey who by Ext.A6 order, directed to rectify the mistake but it was not done and therefore appellant is entitled to get a declaration of title and for the consequential reliefs. 2. Respondents resisted the suit contending that under RSA 826/2011 2 Ext.A4 gift deed, appellant obtained title only to 1.5 cents in survey No.115/7-2 and the said extent is only 65 sq.m and the resurvey plan was finalised as early as on 25.4.1991 and the suit was filed only on 18.7.1996 and therefore the suit is not maintainable. It was contended that appellant has no title to the additional extent stated as 'vadavu vasi' in Ext.A4 and therefore appellant has no title to the plaint schedule property. 3. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 and C1 to C3 dismissed the suit holding that appellant did not establish the title and the resurvey plan was finalised in 1991 and the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Appellant challenged the decree before Sub Court, Kottarakara in A.S.68 of 2000. Learned Sub Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the findings of learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that under Ext.A1, 1.5 cents and 'vadavu vasi' was transferred, the total extent would come to 1.176 ares and it is the plaint schedule property and the courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and on the RSA 826/2011 3 evidence it should have been found that appellant has title to 1.176 ares of land under Ext.A1 and he has been in possession of the property, constructed in the building and in such circumstances, a decree should have been granted. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The suit was for declaration of title, possession and consequential relief of injunction. Appellant could succeed in establishing title to the plaint schedule property, only if the donor, under Ext.A1, has title. If the donor had no right over any additional extent of property than 1.5 cents transferred under Ext.A1, the fact that donor included 'vadavu vasi' also in Ext.A1 will not enable appellant to claim title. Appellant has not even produced the anterior title deed of the plaint schedule property to prove that the donor under Ext.A1 had title to any additional extent over and above 1.5 cents. In such circumstances, I do not find any susbtantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk