KODOTH BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. B.RATHNAKARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Second Appeals arises from the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Hosdurg in A.S. Nos.10 and 11 of 2003 dismissing O.S. No.242 of 1996 and 133 of 1996, respectively of the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg.

(2.) THE 1st plaintiff in O.S. No.133 of 1996 along with another filed O.S. No.242 of 1996 against the defendant who is common in both the cases. In O.S. No.133 of 1996 the plaintiffs alleged that the plaint A schedule item Nos.1 and 2 along with other items belonged to the 1st plaintiff as per document Nos.767 and 769 of 1996 executed by Koragan and Madhavi, respectively. Item No.3 of the plaint A schedule is said to belong to the 2nd plaintiff in O.S. No.133 of 1996 as per document No.2417 of 1995 executed by Balan. It is further alleged that property of the respondent is on the west of item No.3 of the plaint A schedule in O.S. No.133 of 1996 and that the said properties are separated by well defined boundaries. Defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property. In O.S. No.242 of 1996, it is contended that the plaintiffs purchased the plaint A schedule from Asyumma as per document No.2780 of 1996. The said Asyumma got it assigned from the Government being excess land surrendered by one Peethambaran. There also the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant who has property on the western side of plant A schedule is attempting to trespass.

(3.) THE trial court found that identity of the property is proved by Ext.C6. The trial court however found that the claim of plaintiffs in the suits that they are in possession of the suit property is not established. Accordingly the suits were dismissed. That finding was confirmed by the first appellate court in the appeals first above mentioned. In these Second Appeals the finding of the courts below regarding possession is assailed.