P.N.SREEDHARAN Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS are the appellants. The suit was for fixation of boundary and for permanent prohibitory injunction. Plaintiffs contend that they are in possession of 1 acre 28 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.929/1/1. Its eastern boundary is shown as the property of Ashariparambu Narayanan, southern boundary is a Thodu, western boundary is the property of the defendant and the northern boundary is shown as road. It is contended that this property along with other extent originally belonged to deceased defendant Purushothaman. He executed an assignment deed in favour of plaintiffs in respect of 67 cents in 1980 and another 61 cents in 1983. Thus making a total of 1 acre 28 cents of land shown in the plaint schedule as per Exts.A1 and A2 respectively. Plaintiffs claim title on the strength of Exts.A1 and A2 assignment deeds executed by the deceased defendant Purushothaman on 23/10/1980 and 08/09/1983. The recitals in Exts.A1 and A2 would show that the defendant had obtained right over the said property along with other extent as per the Pattayam No.3389/1966. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it was stated that the property obtained assignment by the plaintiffs as per Exts.A1 and A2 had well -defined boundaries except on the western side and that the parties were in absolute possession of the property covered by Exts.A1 and A2.

(2.) IT was stated by the deceased defendant in the written statement that the total extent of the property obtained assignment as per the proceedings mentioned above was 1 acre 80.310 cents. Thus according to the defendants, excluding the property covered by Exts.A1 and A2 the defendant is in possession of the remaining extent. Defendant died subsequently. His legal representatives were impleaded as the supplemental defendants. The trespass alleged was denied. It was further contended that at the time of widening of the road, 9 cents of land from out of the property obtained assignment under Exts.A1 and A2 was given or surrendered. As such the contention that plaintiffs were in possession of the entire 1 and 28 cents as stated in the plaint was denied.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the courts below should have found that as per Exts.A1 and A2, plaintiffs had obtained title to the property and since Exts.A1 and A2 were executed by the deceased defendant, the plaintiffs' title cannot be denied and if so, the plaintiffs should have been granted a decree for fixation of boundary and for injunction. It was also contended that the defendants did not produce Pattayam obtained by the deceased defendant and there was no request on the part of the defendants to measure the property covered by that Pattayam.