JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. The present appeal is preferred by the appellants who are defendant Nos.1 to 6, aggrieved by the concurrent findings in O.S. No.359 of 2013 on the files of the Principal Sub Court Kozhikode and in A.S. No.54 of 2015 on the files of the 2 nd Additional District Court, Kozhikode. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The suit was instituted by the plaintiff (1 st respondent herein) for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title and declaration. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaint schedule property forms part of item No.5 in the partition deed No.1916/1950 of Chevayur Sub Registry. The plaint schedule property consists of 52 cents as shown in the partition deed No.1916/1950 and Re-survey No.110 of Kovoor village. The property was originally in the joint possession of one Kelu, Raman and Samikkutty. They partitioned the property as per Ext.A1 partition deed under which, item Nos.1 and 2 was allotted to Sri. Kelu, item No.3 is allotted to Sri. Raman and item Nos.4 and 5 are allotted to Sri.Samikutty. The plaintiff purchased the property consisting of item No.4 and 5 of the partition deed from Sri. Samikutty in 1968. The appellants obtained their title from one Chandran, who purchased the property from Sri. Kelu. Item Nos.1 and 2 property in Ext.A1 consists of one (1) Acre and Seventy Three (73) cents and one (1) Acre and Thirteen (13) cents. The appellants contended that they purchased the other properties also in the year 1968. Later, a portion of the property was assigned by Sri. Chandran to the plaintiff’s wife, one Prema Vijayan who sold the property to Sri. Muhammed. During the pendency of the suit, the land in question was acquired by the Special Tahsildar, (LA) for establishing a Cyber Park at the instance of the Kerala State Infrastructure Limited. An advocate commissioner was appointed for inspection and measurement of the plaint schedule property, and it was found that the lie of the plaint schedule property was different, and accordingly, the plaintiff amended the suit seeking for rectification of the schedule contained in the partition deed. According to the plaintiff, the mistake had occurred in the description of the boundaries of the title deed of the plaintiff and the title deed of Sri. According to the plaintiff, the mistake had occurred in the description of the boundaries of the title deed of the plaintiff and the title deed of Sri. Chandran itself was a continuation of the mistake which happened while drafting the partition deed. The properties in Kovoor Amsom were on the northern side and thus in the Iringallur Amsom were on the southern side but in the partition deed, item No.2 was shown as situated on the east of item No.1. Likewise, item No.5 was wrongly shown as situated on the eastern side in item No.4. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit by contending that the suit was barred by limitation. It is further contended that the plaintiff had no other property left with him after he had transferred the properties in favour of Sri. Muhammed as per Ext.A19. The other contentions were also raised. By the time the suit was taken up for trial, the property was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and hence the plaintiff had given up the relief in the form of recovery of possession and pressed for the relief for declaration of title, since the consequence of which would entitle him to claim the amounts in deposit. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A32 documents were produced, and PW1 and PW2 were examined, and, on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B18 were produced. Exts.C1 and C6 are the reports of the advocate commissioner and plan. The trial court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s case is genuine and declared that there are mistakes in item No.5 in document No.1916/1950 of Chevayur Sub Registry and the same was carried forward to document No.1011/1968 and purchase certificate No.15/1984. Accordingly, the suit was decreed, and the land acquisition reference was answered, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount in court deposit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants 1 to 6 preferred A.S. No.54 of 2015 before the 2 nd Additional District Court, Kozhikode, which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 12.4.2019, and hence the present appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants 1 to 6 preferred A.S. No.54 of 2015 before the 2 nd Additional District Court, Kozhikode, which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 12.4.2019, and hence the present appeal. 3. While the appeal was admitted to file on 23.10.2019, this Court framed the following substantial question of law for consideration: “Did not the courts below err in having failed to consider the impact of proviso to Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act in the background of the abandonment of the relief of recovery of possession”. 4. Heard Sri. V.V.Asokan, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Smt. Nikhila Susan Paulose, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Sri. T.Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Srinath Girish, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Sri. Denny Devassy, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State and Sri. K.A. Abdul Salam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 13 th respondent. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the suit was instituted without impleading the legal heirs of Sri. Samikkutty in the party array. The plaintiff has no other property left after the execution of Ext.A19, wherein it is mentioned that the original partition deed was also handed over. The amendment to the plaint was sought after the advocate commissioner had filed a report, and, by the time the amendment was sought, the relief for declaration had become time-barred. The period of limitation for filing a suit for declaration is prescribed under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, and the period fixed is three years. The trial court had decided the title on the basis of the report of the advocate commissioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the findings of the court below are perfectly legal and do not call for any interference. The total extent of property covered by Ext.A1 is Seven (7) Acre and Sixty (60) cents, which falls within Iringalloor and Kovoor Amsoms. Item Nos.1 and 2 of the Ext.A1 partition deed consist of two (2) Acres and ninety (90) cents. The advocate commissioner who identified the property by virtue of Ext.C5 plan had clearly found the existence of two (2) Acre and ninety (90) cents in item Nos.1 and 2 of Ext.A1. Item Nos.1 and 2 of the Ext.A1 partition deed consist of two (2) Acres and ninety (90) cents. The advocate commissioner who identified the property by virtue of Ext.C5 plan had clearly found the existence of two (2) Acre and ninety (90) cents in item Nos.1 and 2 of Ext.A1. If the properties as described in Ext.A1 is looked into, one cannot identify any property as per the description. The report of the advocate commissioner clearly shows that the apprehension voiced by the plaintiff was correct. Still further, it is pointed out that the relief for declaration being encompassed under a larger relief of recovery of possession, the period of limitation would be for the larger relief and not for the lesser relief. It is further submitted that the relief sought for rectification of the deed was perfectly maintainable under Section 26(C) of the Specific Relief Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Puran Ram v. Bhaguram and Another [ 2008 (4) SCC 102 ] and Tetali Sooramma v. Kovvuri Venkayya and others [AIR 1938 Madras589]. 7. At the request of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, this Court had permitted the appellants to raise an additional question of law as follows: “ Whether the relief for declaration of time is barred by limitation.” 8. During the course of consideration of the appeal, this Court felt it expedient to call for the records relating to the land acquisition proceedings in order to ascertain as to whether any of the parties to the lis has received the compensation awarded. 9. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the learned Government Pleader has made available the records of the land acquisition proceedings, which show that entire properties have been acquired. As far as the compensation in respect of 52.5 cents is concerned, the same has not been released to any of the parties in view of the pendency of the appeal. 10. In the above backdrop, this Court proceeds to consider the appeal on merits. 11. The plaint schedule property, along with other properties, was admittedly held by Sri. Kelu, Sri. Raman and Sri. Samikutty on the basis of a Kanam deed as evidenced from Ext.A10. As per Ext.A1, the aforesaid Kelu, Raman and Samikkutty partitioned the property. Item Nos.1 and 2 were allotted to Sri. 11. The plaint schedule property, along with other properties, was admittedly held by Sri. Kelu, Sri. Raman and Sri. Samikutty on the basis of a Kanam deed as evidenced from Ext.A10. As per Ext.A1, the aforesaid Kelu, Raman and Samikkutty partitioned the property. Item Nos.1 and 2 were allotted to Sri. Kelu, item No.3 was allotted to Sri. Raman and item Nos.4 and 5 were allotted to Sri, Samikutty. Samikutty sold the property in item Nos.4 and 5 to the plaintiff and thus the property became under the possession of the plaintiff. On the same day, Sri. Kelu assigned Item Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.A1 to one Sri. Chandran, who is the predecessor in interest of defendants 1 to 6 as per the document No.1012 of 1968, which is marked as Ext.B1. In fact, in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants 1 to 6, there is no clear denial of title of the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff that mistake had occurred in the survey number and boundaries in the title deed was, however denied. In view of the aforesaid contention, the plaintiff took an advocate commissioner for identifying the property with the help of a surveyor. The advocate commissioner filed an Ext.C5 report which specifically shows the entire lie and nature of the property. A perusal of Ext.C5 shows that the case pleaded by the plaintiff is correct. In Ext.C5, plot A is item No.2 in Ext.B1, plot B is item No.2 in A2 (plaint schedule), plot C is item No.1 in A2 and plot D is item No.1 in Ext.B1. The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence, found that item No.2 in Ext.A1 is on the eastern side of item No.5 and not on the northern side. If the appellants’ case is to be accepted, then there should exist some property on the northern side of item No.5. However, the same is not the case since the advocate commissioner could not identify the property in the lie and nature as prescribed in Ext.A1 partition deed. 12. Yet another reason on which the appellants were non-suited is that the properties were situated in Kovoor and Iringalloor amsoms and that the Kovoor amsom is on the northern side and the Iringalloor amsom is on the southern side. 12. Yet another reason on which the appellants were non-suited is that the properties were situated in Kovoor and Iringalloor amsoms and that the Kovoor amsom is on the northern side and the Iringalloor amsom is on the southern side. The report of the advocate commissioner that item Nos.2 and 5 in Ext.A1 is situated in Kovoor amsom and the other items are in Iringalloor amsom is not seen challenged by the defendants/appellants herein. Moreover, the defendants could not substantiate that they had other properties in the Kovoor amsom which they had purchased by different documents. Therefore, the case pleaded by the plaintiff was found to be more probable than the case set up by the defendants. 13. It is in the above context that the question of law framed by this Court is to be considered. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, provides that there is a discretion for the court not to grant declaratory relief if the plaintiff has not asked for consequential relief. In the present case, in the suit as instituted at the first instance, the plaintiff had sought a relief for the recovery of possession. It is only because of the land acquisition proceedings that the plaintiff did not wish to press the relief of recovery of possession, because, admittedly, the property was acquired under compulsory acquisition and thus rendering the relief for recovery of possession infructuous. Therefore, this is not a case where the plaintiff should be non- suited because of the rigour of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. If the relief for recovery of possession has become infructuous, there is no gain say in contending that the plaintiff will not be entitled for the declaration of title. Once the land stood acquired in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, the entitlement for declaration of title assumes significance inasmuch as the entitlement to claim the amount in court deposit will depend upon the result of the suit. Therefore, viewed in the above perspective, this Court is not persuaded to hold that merely because the plaintiff has given up the relief for recovery of possession, the suit ought to have been dismissed. Accordingly, the question of law is answered against the appellant. 14. Therefore, viewed in the above perspective, this Court is not persuaded to hold that merely because the plaintiff has given up the relief for recovery of possession, the suit ought to have been dismissed. Accordingly, the question of law is answered against the appellant. 14. Coming to the next question as to whether the suit for declaration of title is barred by limitation, this Court finds that, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mallava vs. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since Died) by LRs and others [2024 KHC Online 6739], the plaintiff having sought the relief for recovery of possession which is a larger relief and the period of limitation is under Article 65, the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 58 will not apply in the present case. Admittedly, the defendants have no case that if the declaration as sought is granted by the court, it will amount to erosion of his property mentioned in Ext.A1. The advocate commissioner has identified the property in relation to the lie and nature and found that the defendants still have the property covered by Ext.A1. Viewed in the above perspective, this Court finds that the suit is not barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act and therefore the question of law is answered against the appellant. Resultantly, this Court finds that both the courts have correctly analyzed the facts and evidence in the present case and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as claimed for. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.