IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 RSA.No. 1222 of 2010() ---------------------- A.S.203/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.325/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: ----------------------------------------- 1. K.KARUNAKARAN, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, KARINGARAPALLI, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. T.V.PETER, S/O.YUSUF, MIDHUNAMPALLAM, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. 3. T.K.SUKUMARAN, S/O.KUTTAN, SREENILAYAM, VILAYANCHATHANUR, THENKURUSSI AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK-678671. 4. AGEESH, S/O.NARAYANAN, ABHILASH NIVAS, VILAYANCHATHANUR, THENKURUSSI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK-678671. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SMT.O.K.SANTHA SMT.P.L.MARY TREASA RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD-678001. RSA.No. 1222 of 2010 :2: 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 001. 4. PONNAN, VILLAGEMAN, KODUMBU VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 001. 5. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, L.B.C.SUB DIVISION, MALAMPUZHA IRRIGATION, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 001. 6. MAYANKUTTY, S/O.MUTHU, MANIYANKADU HOUSE, KAKKATHARA, THIRUVALATHUR, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 7. MALAYATH CHINNAYAPPAN, KARINGARAPULLI, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 8. VISWANATHAN NAIR, S/O.KOCHU, PANICKER, PADMALAYAM, KARINGARAPULLI, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 9. C.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHELLAN, ELANTHAYANKODE, KANNNUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 702. 10. CHINNAMMU AMMA ALIAS KALYANI AMMA, W/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, NHAVALUR HOUSE, KARINGARAPULLI, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 11. KOLAPPAN NAIR, NHAVALUR HOUSE, KARINGARAPULLI, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 559. 12. DAMAYANTHI AMMA, W/O.BALARAMA MENON, NHAVALUR HOUSE, KARINGASRAPULLI, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 559. 13. KANDAYI, S/O.ARU, MANIYAMKADU HOUSE, KADAMKKODE, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678 551. 14. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, S/O.KANDAYI, MANIYAMKADU HOUSE, KADAMKODE, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678 551. RSA.No. 1222 of 2010 :3: 15. SREEDHARAN, S/O.KANDAYI, MANIYAMKADU HOUSE, KADAMKODE, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678 551. 16. CHAMI, S/O.KANDAYI, MANIYAMKADU HOUSE, KADAMKODE, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678 551. 17. RAMANKUTTY, S/O.KANDAYI, MANIYAMKADU HOUSE, KADAMKODE, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678 551. 18. CHANDRAN, S/O.CHERUKUTTY, MANIYANKADU HOUSE, KADAMKODE, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678 551. 19. VALSALA, W/O.MUTHU, AYYAPPANKAVU, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 20. BABU, S/O.MUTHU, AYYAPPANKAVU, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551`. 21. MURALI, S/O.MUTHU, AYYAPPANKAVU, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 22. VELU, S/O.AMMU, RESIDING AT PARISAKKAL HOUSE, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 23. KOMAYU AMMA, W/O.NACHU NAIR, KARINGARAPULLI, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 24. SUNDARAN NAIR, KARINGARAPULLI, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 25. KRISHNANKUTTY, KARINGARAPULLI, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 26. NARAYANAN NAIR, KARINGASRAPULLI, KKODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. 27. KASHMAN POTTANI, KARINGARAPULLI, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. RSA.No. 1222 of 2010 :4: 28. B.K.KAREEM ROWTHER, S/O.KUNJU ROWTHER DURGA PARAMBU HOUSE, VILAYANCHATHANUR, VILYANNUR POST, THENKURUSSI AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK-678 671. 29. KODUMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KODUMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK-678 551. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RSA.No. 1222 of 2010 ORDER IN C.M.APPL.NO.899/2010 IN R.S.A.NO.1222/2010 Closed Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN 15.11.2010 //True Copy// P.A to Judge S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A No.1222 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and injunction both mandatory and prohibitory, have filed this appeal. State and a number of other persons were arrayed as defendants in the suit. Six items of properties were described in the plaint schedule, over which, declaration of title was canvassed by the plaintiffs on the basis of Exhibits A1 to A4 documents, which, admittedly, disclosed title of the plaintiffs only over 28 cents. When evidence was let in the case, it was conceded that the reliefs canvassed in the suit were confined to item Nos. 1 and 2 only, and not any more in respect of item Nos. 3 to 6. On the materials placed, the trial court found the claim set up by the plaintiffs, even in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2, was wholly unsustainable, with the result, the plaintiffs were non-suited. Challenge against the dismissal of their suit by way of an appeal was turned down by the lower appellate court. Hence, this appeal. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below holding R.S.A No.1222 OF 2010 2 that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration sought for by them, even in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 described in the plaint schedule, is challenged on the basis that an application moved by the plaintiffs before the trial court directing production of relevant records relating to the acquisition made by the 1st defendant State and revenue officials was ordered, but the same had not been complied with by the defendants. If such materials had been tendered in the case as ordered by the court, then the plaintiffs could have established their claim over item nos. 1 and 2 properties scheduled in the plaint, is the submission of the counsel. Perusing the judgment rendered by the trial court and also the lower appellant court, I find no merit in the aforesaid ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to impeach the non-suiting of the plaintiffs. It is seen, the 1st plaintiff, who was examined as PW1 has admitted in unequivocal terms that both item Nos. 1 and 2 have been acquired for the purpose of an irrigation canal. When the plaintiffs sought for a declaration of their title over an immovable property, the burden is on them to produce the relevant materials showing their entitlement to have such relief from the court. Production of records by revenue R.S.A No.1222 OF 2010 3 officials indicating of acquisition made or collection of revenue etc., even assuming it relates to any portion of suit property, needless to point out, is hardly sufficient to declare the title of the plaintiffs over the properties described in the plaint. So much so, the challenge now mooted that non-production of the documents, which had been sought by the plaintiffs would have tilted the decision in their favour, deserve to be taken note of only for its rejection. 3. There is no question of law, leave alone any substantial question of law, in the appeal, and, further, there is no impropriety in the concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants. The appeal is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE dmb