DAMODARA PANICKER Vs. AYYAPPAN KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the plaintiff who sued in 1954 for recovery of a small strip of land with consequential reliefs.

(2.) The property (Re-Survey) R.S. No. 611/1 belongs to defendants 2 and 3; R.S. No. 611/2 on its east belongs to the 1st defendant; and R.S. No. 612/2B, lying on the north of the above two plots, belongs to the plaintiff; and they are in the possession of the respective owners except a narrow strip, 2 to 3 feet wide, at the verge of the boundary between the plaintiffs land and the defendants. Ext. C-1, the plan found correct by the courts below, shows that the fence at the boundary admittedly put up by the defendants, is not in the line of demarcation between R.S. Nos. 611 and 612, but is 2 to 3 feet away on one side or the other. Though the suit is framed as in ejectment from the encroachment, it is conceded that the relief sought is to settle the boundary along the line of demarcation as fixed by the Survey authorities at the resettlement.

(3.) The contentions of the 1st defendant, with whom alone we are concerned here, are that when he got possession of R.S. No. 611/2 in 1947 there was no fence between that and the plaintiffs property on the north, that he had been putting up a fence in the present line since 1947, and that the suit is without bona fides and has to be dismissed.