1. The defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession have come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the reversal of the findings rendered by the Sub Court, Hosdurg, in O.S. No.168 of 2012, by the Additional District Court-II, Kasaragod, in A.S. No.72 of 2014.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

                  Plaint A schedule property originally belonged to Thazhakkat Mana on Jenmam right. One Kappanakkal Kunhiraman, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs, being a tenant, obtained plaint A schedule property on an oral Kuzhikanam right from the aforesaid Thazhakkat Mana. Later, Kunhiraman obtained Jenmam right over the property from the Land Tribunal, Nileshwar, as per order in O.A. No.3651 of 1976 and thereafter the Land Tribunal issued a purchase certificate in his name. As per the purchase certificate, the plaint A schedule property is a compact plot with common boundaries. The western boundary of the property belonged to P.P. Kannan, who was another tenant under the Thazhakkat Mana, as well as George Thomas Kottukappally. As per the list of tenants approved by the Kerala State Land Board, Sri. P.P. Kannan has got the property in R.S. No.260/1A1A1 of Cheemeni village. Later, the Government took over the property from George Thomas Kottukappally, excluding the property owned by the tenants. When the defendants tried to trespass into the plaint A schedule property, Kunhiraman filed O.S. No.111 of 1983 and the suit was dismissed, leading to A.S. No.38 of 1987, which was also dismissed. Against the dismissal of the appeal, Kunhiramn preferred S.A. No.787 of 1990 before this Court, and this Court had remanded the matter back to the Sub Court for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the plaintiff to take steps to get the property identified, but the appeal was dismissed by the Sub Judge again. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred R.S.A. No.766 of 2003. However, the same was also dismissed. It is stated that the plaintiffs have got title over the plaint A Schedule property on the strength of the purchase certificate bearing No.16702/1976, and the earlier suit was dismissed only on the basis of some contradictions in the documents, which will not affect the title of the plaintiffs. After the disposal of the second appeal, the 2nd defendant and his workers trespassed into the suit property and reduced the same to their illegal possession, and hence the plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of possession. The defendants entered appearance, contested the suit and contended that plaint A schedule property was never in possession of the predecessor of the plaintiffs, namely Kunhiraman, on Kuzhikanom right from Thazhakkat Mana. It is also contended that the further averment that the western boundary of the property belongs to P.P. Kannan is also incorrect since P.P. Kannan is not in possession of the property. The Government had only transferred an extent of 1268 acres and 74 cents comprised in various survey sub divisions in Cheemeni village to the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. as per G.O.(MS) No.741/77/RD/Dated 13.6.1977 to raise cashew plantations. The District Collector, Kannur, in pursuance of the said Government Order, as per reference No.B6/105329/76 dated 15.6.1997 directed the Tahsildar, Hosdurg, to hand over the possession of the aforesaid extent of land to the then Assistant Superintendent of Cheemeni Estate of Plantation Corporation of Kerala. Consequently, the Tahsildar, Hosdurg, measured the aforesaid extent and handed over the property to the Assistant Superintendent of the Cheemeni Estate. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked, and PW1 to PW3 were examined. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not proved the identity of the property. It is further stated that the Advocate Commissioner had failed to identify the property going by the purchase certificate, and therefore, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.72 of 2014 before the Additional District Court-II, Kasaragod. By judgment dated 30.11.2015, the first appellate court allowed the appeal and granted a decree for recovery of possession and hence the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri. Renjith Thampan, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, assisted by Sri. N. Rajesh and Sri. N Nanda Kumara Menon, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, assisted by Smt. Smitha S. Pillai.

4. On 18.10.2016, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law and stayed the execution proceedings.

                  (1) When the question of title and identity have gone into consideration in a previous suit and the judicial findings are rendered on the same, whether such judicial findings operate as res judicata in a subsequently instituted suit for recovery of possession?

                  (2) Is not O.S. No.168/2012 barred by res judicata in view of the judgment in R.S.A. No.766/2003 of this Court?

                  (3) Is it necessary for the defendant to adduce independent evidence to prove his title, when the plaintiff himself failed to prove his title under which the suit for recovery of possession is filed?

5. However, later it was brought to the notice of this Court that, much prior to the order of stay, the decree was put to execution and the property was recovered from the defendants, and the plaintiffs have been put in possession. The said fact is taken note of by this Court in its order dated 2.2.2018. It is also clear from the order dated 22.03.2019 that the respondents/plaintiffs were permitted to put up a compound wall around 3.60 Acres, and now they are in possession of the property. In that view of the matter, this Court felt that it was necessary to reframe the substantial questions of law for consideration. Accordingly, while the matter was posted for final hearing, this Court, by order dated 26.3.2026, had reframed the substantial questions of law as follows:

                  (i) Was the Lower Appellate Court justified in relying on Exts.A5 and A6 reports of the Commissioner insofar as the commissioner was not examined as witness and insofar as the said reports are not based on the purchase certificate relied on by the plaintiff? Can order 26 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure be imported into such a circumstance.

                  (ii) In a suit for recovery of possession is it not mandatory for the plaintiff to prove his title. Is it necessary for the defendants to adduce independent evidence to disprove the title of the plaintiff? Are not the findings of the Sub Court as contained in paragraph 21 of the judgment in OS No. 168/2012 of the Sub Court, Hosdurg, more plausible and legal than those contained in AS No.72/2014 of the Additional District Judge-2, Kasaragode?

6. Sri. Renjith Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the first appellate court erred egregiously in reversing the findings rendered by the trial court. Though the learned Senior Counsel admitted that there was a failure on the part of the appellants to adduce oral and documentary evidence, in a suit for recovery of possession, the plaintiff must sustain his/her case on his/her own and not depend upon the weakness of the case projected by the defendants. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Ramaswami Gounder v. Mohammed Meera Lebbai [1960 KLT SN 16 (C.No.32)]. He further relied on the decision of this Court in Narayana Iyer v. Vella [1988 KHC 233] to contend that in a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff can succeed only on the strength of his own title. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, notwithstanding the infirmity on the part of the defendants in adducing evidence, the decree passed by the first appellate court is unsustainable because it relied on an incomplete and faulty report of the Advocate Commissioner. Referring to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the identification carried out by the Advocate Commissioner was improper, as he had not measured the property in accordance with the title document, but had instead relied on the indications given by the plaintiffs, therefore, the findings rendered by the first appellate court cannot be sustained.

7. Per contra, Sri. N. Nanda Kumara Menon, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs, countered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and contended that the first appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and interfered with the finding rendered by the trial court which is clearly perverse. Referring to the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that, except for a vague denial, the defendants failed to adduce any evidence to show that they had a paramount title over the property. He further pointed out that the Advocate Commissioner had measured out the property with reference to the document of title, namely the purchase certificate and also with the help of the surveyor and the Superintendent of the Cheemeni Estate, who was present at the time of inspection, did not raise any objections.

8. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar, perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and also the records of the case.

9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is imperative for this Court to refer to the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to certain extent. This Court is constrained to do so because there is a total lack of evidence on the side of the defendants. Since it is trite law that the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment must succeed on the strength of his own title, this exercise is necessitated.

10. In the present case, what is contended is that the plaintiffs got title by virtue of a purchase certificate. It is pertinent to note that the existence of the purchase certificate is not disputed. Thus, the title of the plaintiffs stood unequivocally admitted. Under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the issuance of a purchase certificate is a conclusive proof regarding the title and possession of the holder of the certificate. To get over the statutory embargo, the defendants raised a vague plea that the purchase certificate was obtained by fraudulent means. In order to sustain the said plea, it was incumbent upon them to have adduced cogent evidence before the trial court. In the absence of the same, this Court has no other alternative but to conclude that there cannot be any dispute regarding the title of the plaintiffs.

11. Now, what remains to be considered is whether the plaint schedule property is identified or not. There again, the only document available before this Court is Ext.A5 and the evidence of PW1 to PW3. Ext.A5 report evidences the identification and measurement of the plaint schedule property with reference to the purchase certificate, which is now having an extent of 3.60 Acres.

12. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, though raised serious objections to the manner in which Ext.A5 report is drawn. This Court finds that the objections cannot be sustained inasmuch as the inspection was carried out by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the Surveyor and the authorised representative of the appellant Corporation was also available at the time of inspection.

13. A fervent attempt is made by the appellants to contend that the identification done by the Advocate Commissioner is wrong. Reference is made to the boundaries mentioned in the purchase certificate, and also the boundaries as now determined by the Advocate Commissioner. But again, this Court must notice the fact that the purchase certificate was issued in the year 1976 and that the Advocate Commissioner visited the property and inspected the same on 10.02.2012. The Advocate Commissioner, in fact, measured out the property with reference to the purchase certificate, which is clearly evident from the report itself. It must be noted that, the Superintendent of Cheemeni Estate was also present at the time of inspection and represented that the suit property and the north and eastern property of the suit properties are in possession of the appellant Corporation. The infirmity which is now pointed out stands obliterated by the failure of the defendants to produce their respective documents to prove that the plaint schedule property, in fact, is included in their assignment by the Government of Kerala. Therefore, on the date of inspection, the Advocate Commissioner had no other alternative but to proceed with the inspection of the property based on the purchase certificate.

14. Moreover, the identity of the property qua the purchase certificate, is confirmed by the Surveyor who was present at the time of inspection. The oral testimony of PW1 clearly shows that the plaintiff, had entrusted a copy of the purchase certificate to the Advocate Commissioner for measurements. Though the plaintiff was extensively cross-examined by the defendants, nothing has been brought out to contradict the aforesaid statement. Therefore, on a totality of the facts and evidence adduced by the parties, it is clear that the findings of the first appellate court cannot be said to be perverse while it reversed the dismissal of the suit.

15. Resultantly, the substantial questions of law as reframed in the appeal are answered against the appellants, and it is concluded that Exts.A5 and A6 report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner are acceptable in evidence because the measurement of the property was done in the presence of the defendants. Though in a suit for recovery of possession, it is the paramount duty of the plaintiffs to prove their title, in the present case, the plaintiffs successfully proved the title and identity of the property, and it was incumbent upon the defendants to have discharged their burden to contradict the claim of the plaintiffs. In not doing so, the claim of the defendants must fail.

16. Accordingly, the judgment and decree in A.S. No.72 of 2014 on the files of the Additional District Court-II, Kasaragod, stands confirmed. The appeal is found to be bereft of merit, and accordingly, the same fails and is dismissed. Cost made easy.