VELAYUDHAN SAHADEVAN Vs. LOISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. 844 of 1987, who was non-suited by the lower appellate court is the appellant.

(2.) THE plaint consists of two items of property, namely, item No.1 having an extent of 18 = cents comprised in Sy. No.128/2A and item No.2 having an extent of 2 = cents in Sy. No. 128/2A. On the allegation that the defendants are trying to trespass into the property, initially the suit for declaration of title and other reliefs were sought for. Later, after the commission report was obtained, it was amended for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction also.

(3.) THE trial court mainly based on the alleged division of the property made by the commissioner as per Ext.C1(a) plan granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. THE disappointed defendants took up the matter in appeal as A.S. 648 of 1994. Before the appellate court the defendants had applied for commission for reporting certain other aspects by the same commissioner and his report and plan were marked as Ext.C2 and C2(a). THE lower appellate court on the basis of the level difference of the properties, the age of the construction found in the disputed portion, the presence of the boundary wall and also a way on the southern side of the property of the plaintiff, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not, as contended by the defendants, obtained the entire 21 cents covered by his document of title. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit stood dismissed. That brings the plaintiff before this court.