SEETHA DEVI Vs. DILEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision in A.S. No. 50 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cherthala is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) A .S. No. 50 of 2010 is an appeal preferred by the defendant in O.S. No. 861 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Cherthala, challenging the decision in the said suit. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. She obtained the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ext. A1 preliminary decree in O.S. No. 1/1955 on the file of the Sub Court, Vaikom. The plaint schedule property comprises in Sy. No. 429/3 of Aroor Village. According to the plaintiff, the defendant who is the owner of the property in Survey No. 1/1 of Aroor Village, lying on the south of the plaint schedule property, was attempting to erect some structures in the plaint schedule property, taking advantage of the fact that there is no boundary demarcation in a portion of the boundary separating the plaint schedule property with the property of the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and committing waste therein.

(3.) IN the course of the trial, an Advocate Commissioner was deputed to locate and identify the plaint schedule property. The Advocate Commissioner initially submitted Ext. C1 report and C1(a) plan. Later, on a reference by the court, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property again and submitted Ext. C2 report, C2(a) plan and C2(b) enlarged sketch. Exts. C2 report, C2(a) plan and C2(b) enlarged sketch, which were made available at the time of hearing, reveal that the Commissioner had identified and indicated in Ext. C2(b) enlarged sketch the survey demarcation line separating the properties in Sy. No. 429/3 and Sy. No. 1/1. A B C D E F G P line in Ext. C2 (b) enlarged sketch is the survey demarcation line separating the properties in the aforesaid survey numbers. In Ext. C2 report, the Commissioner stated that the defendant had trespassed into a portion of the plaint schedule property in Survey No. 429/3 and erected a structure. The portion of the property trespassed into by the defendant is shown in Ext. C2(b) enlarged sketch as CDMC.