PULIMKUDI SIVAKSHETHRAM Vs. UMMINI AMMUKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S.157 of 1989, who suffered concurrent decrees are the appellants. In execution of the decree so obtained by the plaintiff, the defendants filed two applications, one for deputing a commissioner to verify whether the execution had been carried out in terms of the decree and another against the order closing the execution proceedings. C.R.Ps arise from the respective orders against them. THE fate of the C.R.Ps will therefore depend upon the fate of the Second Appeal. THE parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court.

(2.) THE plaintiff and his mother Madhevi Ummini obtained 23 cents of property as per Ext.A1 dated 9th Medam 1113. By Ext.A2 dated 13th Thulam, 1114 they sold 15 = cents to the defendants. THE balance 7 = cents was retained by them. THE total extent of 23 cents is shown as plaint A schedule and 15 = cents sold to the defendants is shown as plaint B schedule. Plaint C schedule is the balance 7 = cents. Plaint B schedule property lies on the eastern side of plaint C schedule property. Plaintiff wanted to put up boundary on the eastern side of C schedule property. THE defendants were not amenable to such a course and they objected to the same and that has resulted in the filing of the suit.

(3.) THE defendants carried the matter in appeal as A.S.1077 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. THE lower appellate court on an independent evaluation of the evidence concurred with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. THE lower appellate court also dismissed I.A. 1356 of 1995 seeking to amend the written statement and to raise additional pleadings.