MADATHIL ABOOBACKER HAJI Vs. K.M.KUNJIKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No.251 of 2004 of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode sued the defendants for a decree for mandatory injunction paying court fee under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short, "the Act") claiming that he is in possession of the disputed property and that the respondents caused obstruction to the construction of a compound wall on the northern side of the said property. THE trial court dismissed the suit since the plaintiff was not able to show that he has exclusive right over the disputed area shown by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C3(b), plan. That decision was confirmed by the Sub Court, Kozhikode in A.S. No.171 of 2007.

(2.) APPELLANT-plaintiff claims to be the owner in possession of the suit property - 7.637 cents in Sy. No.4/2 (R.S. No.33/4) as per Ext.A1, deed No.4176 of 1993. He claimed that on the east of the said property is the Appakkandy Parambu belonging to the respondents and on its further east, it is a way. There are pathways on the north and south of the properties of the appellant and the respondents. There is a water chal along the east of the suit property running through it and belonging to the appellant. Respondents, according to the appellant, obstructed his constructing compound wall on the northern side of the suit property.

(3.) THE learned counsel who took notice for the respondents contended that there is no substantial question of law involved in the matter requiring decision by this Court.