IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 RSA.No. 902 of 2005() ------------------------------ AS.236/2000 of III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK-I, THRISSUR OS.74/1995 of I ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.S. GOPINATH. RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NEELANKAVIOL KOLLANGADAN GEORGE, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. JULIYA VINCENT, D/O.NEELANKAVIL KOLLENGADAN GEORGE AND LATE THRESSIA, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. JANCY MICHAEL, D/O.NEELANKAVIL KOLLENGADAN GEORGE AND LATE THRESIA, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. JOSEPH GEORGE, S/O.NEELANKAVIL KOLLANGADAN GEORGE, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. JAMES GEORGE, S/O.NEELANKAVIL KOLLANGADAN GEORGE, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. R1 TO R5 BY SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. --------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.902 of 2005 --------------------------------------- JUDGMENT State is challenging the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction granted by Additional District Judge, Thrissur in A.S. No.236/2000. Respondents instituted O.S.No.74/1995 before Additional Sub Court, Thrissur seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction contending that first plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property as per Exhibit A1 sale deed 1581/1961 and since then, she, along with second plaintiff husband, has been in possession of the property and the adjacent property, on its north, belongs to Chalissery family and second appellant claims that it is a puramboke land. On 10.1.1995, there was an attempt by the respondents to trespass into the property. Contending that plaintiffs have been in uninterrupted possession of the property, a decree for injunction restraining trespass was sought. On the death of first plaintiff, respondents 2 to 5 were impleaded as additional plaintiffs. 2. State filed a written statement contending that revenue records show that property in Sy.No.39/2, having a width of 3.4 RSA 902/05 2 metres and length of 40 metres, is situated to the north of the property of the plaintiffs and it is a puramboke chal and that puramboke chal is to be retained and plaintiffs are not entitled to the decree sought for. 3. Learned Munsiff, on the evidence of PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A5 and C1 dismissed the suit finding that plaintiffs did not establish the identity of the plaint schedule property. Learned Additional District Judge in A.S.No.236/2000, found that right of the plaintiffs over the property, obtained under Exhibit A1, is not disputed and the puramboke land claimed by the respondents is in Sy.No.39/2 and the twenty four cents claimed in the plaint is in Sy.No.39/1 and possession of the respondents has been established by the evidence of PW1 and the report of the Commissioner. On these findings, in reversal of the findings of the trial court, learned Additional District Judge granted a decree. It is challenged in the second appeal. 4. Learned Government Pleader vehementally argued that without establishing the identity of the plaint schedule property, first appellate court should not have granted a decree. It was argued that there is puramboke chal in Sy.No.39/2 and RSA 902/05 3 Government is entitled to take possession of the property in Sy. No.39/2 and in such circumstances, without identification of the property, a decree should not have been granted. 5. The decree granted in favour of the respondents is restraining the appellants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, namely, the property in Sy.No.39/1. No decree is granted in respect of the property in Sy.No.39/2, which, according to the appellants, is a puramboke land. Even if plaintiffs have trespassed into the puramboke land and reduced it into their possession, State cannot trespass into the property and the encroachers are to be evicted following the procedure provided under the Land Conservancy Act. The decree granted will not affect the right of the State to the property in Sy.No. 39/2. As the decree is confined to the property in Sy.No.39/1, over which State has no claim, I find no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. 3rd March, 2011 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv