K CHANDUKUTTY Vs. PHILOMINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE disappointed second defendant in O.S. 405 of 1992, who suffered concurrent decrees at the hands of both the courts below, is the appellant. THE parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court. During the pendency of this appeal, the second respondent before this court died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 9.

(2.) THE suit was one for injunction. Both the plaintiff and defendants traced their title to Ext.A1 document, which is a partition deed dated 28.12.1978. It is not in dispute that the property of the second defendant lies on the eastern side of the property owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Alleging that the defendants are trying to trespass into the property of the plaintiff and trying to put up a retaining wall, the suit was laid.

(3.) THE matter was carried in appeal by the second defendant as A.S.155 of 1996 before the District Court, Kozhikode, which is re-numbered as A.S. 102 of 1996 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode. THE lower appellate court on an independent evaluation of the evidence found that the findings of the trial court are fully justified going by the evidence on record and dismissed the appeal. Hence this Second Appeal.