RAMAN PILLAI KRISHNAN PILLAI Vs. KUMARAN PARAMESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 14 / 1972 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Neyyattinkara are the appellants.

(2.) The suit originally filed by the plaintiffs was for permanent prohibitory injunction. Subsequently after the defendants filed written statement, the suit was amended claiming declaration of title and recovery of possession. Originally the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment dated 4-7-1974. In A.S. 438/74 preferred by the plaintiffs the appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment and remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. Again the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment dated 30-11-1987. The plaintiffs again took up the matter in appeal and by judgment dated 16-1-1989 in A.S. 69/78 the appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court and remanded the suit for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs to take out a commission to identify the plaint schedule property. Subsequently the Trial Court by judgment dated 30-9-1982 decreed the suit declaring the plaintiffs title to and possession of the plaint schedule property except the house in which the 3rd defendant is residing and passed a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property and committing any waste therein.

(3.) The defendants challenged the decree and judgment before the appellate Court in A.S. No. 181/83 and the plaintiffs preferred memorandum of cross objection with regard to the findings of the Trial Court regarding the house situated in the property found in possession of the 3rd defendant. The appellate Court by judgment dated 7-4-1989 modified the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court to the extent that it declared the plaintiffs' title to and possession in respect of the 10 cents marked as plot AR A5 A4 A3, 10 cents marked as K Kl K2 KJ and building Nos. 1 and 3 marked in Ext. C3 plan and set aside the decree in respect of the remaining portion of the plaint schedule property. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the memorandum of cross objection filed by the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs have preferred the above Second Appeal before this Court.