IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 SA.No. 83 of 1998(B) -------------------- AS.40/1997 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.274/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. B.K.AMBIKACHARAN, S/O. KRISHNASWAMY IYER, KATTIPARUTHI AMSOM, VALANCHERY DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. 1ST APPELLANT'S WIFE CHERUKATT KALATHIL MANIYAMMA'S DAUGHTER MADHAVIKUTTY AMMA, KATTIPARUTHI AMSOM, VALANCHERY DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. NOW THE APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT PALANI IN TAMIL NADU. BY SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VALANCHERI PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VALANCHERI. BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- S.A No. 83 of 1998 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T A narrow strip of land having a width of 3 1/2 feet and length of 210 feet forms the subject matter of the litigation. Plaintiffs claim that it was possessed by them and wanted the Panchayat to desist from interfering with their possession. 2. The Panchayat resisted the suit. It is pointed out that the property does not belong to the plaintiffs. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs have no title or possession over the narrow strip of land situated on the eastern boundary of the plaintiffs property. Panchayat contended that the plaintiffs and others were trying to trespass and reduce the said strip of land to their possession. Both the courts below accepted the version of the Panchayat and dismissed the suit. 3. Plaintiffs have come up in appeal. According to the plaintiffs, the lay of the property as disclosed by the commission report will show that they are in possession of S.A No. 83 of 1998 2 the disputed property. 4. The recital in the commission report shows that portion which the commissioner says is a narrow strip of land lies contiguous to the plot owned by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs placed considerable reliance on the recital in Ext.A1 document to the effect that നടകനള വഴ . According to the plaintiffs, if as a matter of fact, it was a pathway it would have mentioned as “നട വഴ ” or in other words it would have disclosed as a way used by the public. 5. In fact the plaintiffs have no case that they have got a right of easement over the disputed strip of land. Ext.A1 will not show that the said strip of land was part of the property set apart to them. Ext.A1 also contains recitals with regard to the manner in which the property is to be enjoyed. If as a matter of fact, the disputed strip of land belonged to the plaintiffs, they should have produced the basic title deeds in support of their contentions. 6. No doubt, the arguments look very attractive but on a close scrutiny it can be found to be without any substance at all. A bare look at Ext.A1 document is sufficient S.A No. 83 of 1998 3 to show the hollowness of the claims made by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have received Item 3 in Ext.A1, in which, eastern boundary is shown as narrow strip of land, which is the subject matter of suit. It is therefore evident that strip of land lies outside the property received by the plaintiffs. It is significant to note that compound wall is built excluding that portion. These facts are sufficient to show that the claim made by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted. 7. The Panchayat on the other hand has pointed out that there was a channel for drainage of water towards the north during the rainy season. At any rate, both the courts below found that the plaintiffs have no manner of right over the narrow strip of land which is the subject matter of the suit. The courts have given cogent and convincing reasons as to why the plea of appellants could not be accepted. The findings of the court below are based on evidence in the case. No further discussion is necessary in this regard. 8. In the light of the fact that plaintiffs have not been able to establish any manner of right over the disputed strip of land. Nothing more survives for consideration in this S.A No. 83 of 1998 4 appeal. Therefore, contentions based on Section 249 of the Panchayat Raj Act need not be considered in this appeal. The appeal is without merits and accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma S.A No. 83 of 1998 5 S.A No. 83 of 1998 6