DIPICA C TANNA Vs. D SAMUELRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.163/2005 on the file of Munsiff Court, Devikulam is the appellant. Defendant is the respondent. Appellant instituted the suit seeking a decree for injunction contending that under Ext.A2 assignment deed 1180/2005 appellant has been in possession of the property and he has constructed a building and for construction of the concrete building, he has removed soil from the eastern side of the property as the property is lying in a slope and in order to avoid land sliding he kept a portion of the plaint schedule property having a height of 8 feet on the northern side of the plaint schedule property and the property is well demarcated and identifiable from the neighbouring properties and respondent who has property on the north eastern side of the property, is attempting to trespass into the plaint schedule property and he is to be restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction. Respondent filed a written statement denying the right and possession of the appellant to the disputed north eastern portion of the property contending that it is his possession and appellant has no manner of right or possession of the said property. Respondent sought a decree in the counter claim restraining appellant from trespassing into that portion of the property. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of Exts.A1 to A3, Pws. 1 and 2 and Dws.1 to 3, dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim finding that respondent has established his possession of the property scheduled in the counter claim. Appellant challenged the judgment before District Court, Thodupuzha in A.S.68/2007. Learned District Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the findings of learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant was heard.