(1.) THE second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
(2.) THE suit property (as described in the plaint) is a motorable road with length of 1094 links, width of 20 links and having a total extent of 22 cents in sy. No. 272/1. The said property and other items originally belonged to the Maharaja of Cochin who granted a perpetual lease in favour of the Cochin Rubber Company. That lease hold right was purchased by one Thattil Kochuvareed who executed a Will bequeathing his right to his wife. The wife of Thattil Kochuvareed assigned her right to the father of the appellant and others as per assignment deed No. 3783 of 1967. There was a partition among the father of the appellant and others as per deed No. 1591 of 1988. The suit property was allotted to the share of the father of appellant. There was a further partition among the father of appellant and others as per which the suit property (along with other items) was allotted to the share of the appellant as C schedule to Ext. A4. It is the further case of the appellant that the wife of Thattil Kochuvareed assigned some other items belonging to her to K.M. Augustine, Kayyalakkakom and others as per document No. 1791 of 1966 (a copy of which is Ext. A2). The appellant claimed that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as its absolute owner. While so, the respondents constructed compound wall enclosing the suit property. That affected the proprietary and possessory right of the appellant. Enclosure of the suit property has resulted in blocking entrance to the rest of the property of the appellant. Hence the suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction.
(3.) INITIALLY the trial court had granted a decree in the suit. On appeal at the instance of the respondents, there was a remand directing the trial court to decide whether the entire property in survey No. 272 was acquired or not. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the suit which the first appellate court has confirmed. Hence the Second Appeal.