JOSEPH Vs. SAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT .

(2.) THE following substantial questions of law are framed for a decision:

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellant, plaint A schedule item described as 41 cents in extent and comprised in R.S.No.227/7 belonged to and was in his possession as per Ext.A1, partition deed. The said property has well defined boundaries on all sides. Respondents have property - the plaint B schedule, three cents - towards north-east of the plaint A schedule. Plaint B schedule is about 2-2 = feet higher in level from the plaint A schedule. There is an old stone wall of 2 -2 = feet height to separate the plaint A and B schedules. Respondents 1 and 2 purchased the property on the east misrepresenting the extent and on the strength of that, attempted to trespass into the suit property. Hence the suit.