P.N.JOY Vs. MYTHILY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole plaintiff in O.S.No.157/2010 before the Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulam, has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of suit filed by him for fixation of boundary and other reliefs. The sole reason for dismissing the suit is that the property of the defendants was not scheduled in the plaint.

(2.) The suit was filed on behalf of the appellant as well as other sharers in plaint A schedule which measures 40 cents. The plaint B schedule items 1 and 2 are part of plaint A schedule. D schedule item No.1 is a car workshop measuring 353 sq.ft. of land. B schedule item No.2 is 1.75 Ares. These two items are admitted to be in the possession of the defendants.

(3.) The suit was originally filed for fixation of boundary and permanent injunction which was later amended for recovery of plaint B schedule items 1 and 2 consequent upon the alleged encroachments made by defendants into those items. The suit as it stands now, is for fixation of boundaries of plaint A schedule property which comes on the north west of the entire 60 cents. The car shed structures in B schedule item 1 are also sought to be removed by a decree of injunction on the strength of title.