SNEHALASYAN MUSLIAR Vs. LATHIKA W/O GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise from the common judgment and decree of the Additional District Court-I, Kollam in A.S.Nos.365 and 379 of 2006 which in turn arose from the common judgment and decree in O.S.No.800 of 2002, counter claim therein and O.S.No.368 of 2004 of the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as in the trial court.

(2.) RESPONDENT in R.S.A.No.66 of 2012 (she is the 1st respondent in R.S.A.No.171 of 2012) sued the defendants for a decree for prohibitory injunction in O.S.No.800 of 2002 claiming that the suit property - 10.70 Ares in old survey No.9032 and re-survey No.55/8 originally belonged to Pathumma Kunju as per Ext.A3, she assigned that property to her daughter, Sainaba Beevi Kunju as per Ext.A2, settlement deed No.2487 of 1969 and while the said Sainaba Beevi Kunju (2nd respondent in R.S.A.No.171 of 2012) was in possession and enjoyment, plaintiff purchased the said property from the said Sainaba Beevi Kunju as per Ext.A1, assignment deed No.1159 of 2002. Thus plaintiff claimed to be the owner in possession of the suit property. Defendants are residing on the southern side of the suit property. Plaintiff alleged that defendants removed the survey stones and hence the Taluk Surveyor measured the properties and fixed the boundary. Plaintiff alleged that in spite of that , defendants are trying to trespass into the suit property. Hence the suit.

(3.) IN the meantime 1st defendant expired. Her legal heirs challenged that judgment and decree in A.S.Nos.365 and 379 of 2006 in the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Kollam. The first appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court and finding of the Land Tribunal on reference. Appeals were dismissed. Hence these Second Appeals.