K. T. SHAMSUDDEEN Vs. KOOLIKKULANGARA DEVAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants (in CMA No. 67 of 1994) filed OS No. 131 of 1990 before Munsiff Court for recovery of possession and injunction. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit (the above parties will be referred to in these appeals as appellants and respondents). The respondents filed another suit (as OS No. 352 of 1989) for injunction against appellants. The Munsiff' Court dismissed the suit filed by respondents and decreed the suit filed by appellants. The decree and judgment in both the suits were challenged in appeals as AS 220 and AS 221 of 1992 before the District Court.

(2.) Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by a common judgment which is challenged in CMA No. 67 of 1994 and CMA 10 of 1994. (these appeals are disposed of by this common judgments). As per the impugned judgment, the lower Appellate Court found that the Munsiff Court omitted to frame an issue regarding adverse possession and limitation. According to learned District Judge, an appropriate issue on adverse possession and limitation must be raised and parties must be given an opportunity to adduce evidence on such issue. It was also found that another issue has to be framed for taking a right decision in the suit and the issue relates to the possession of the land appurtenant to and around the Srambi which forms part of plaint schedule property.

(3.) The lower Appellate Court, accordingly framed the following issues: