KUNDAMADATHIL VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMA Vs. KUNHIMOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction has approached this Court aggrieved by the concurrent dismissal of his suit by the lower courts.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

(3.) Facts, in brief, for disposal of the case are as follows: Plaint A and B schedule properties belonged to Chathara Nair, who is the uncle of the plaintiff. After his death, a partition took place between the plaintiff and her sister Rathnavalli on 06.05.1974. That document is marked as Ext.A1 before the trial court. As per Ext.A1, A schedule property was set apart to the share of plaintiff and B schedule property was set apart to her sister Rathnavalli. According to the plaint averments, item No. 17 in Ext.A1 partition deed is described in plaint A schedule and item No. 19 in Ext.A1 partition deed is described in plaint B schedule. It is an admitted case that the defendants are assignees from the plaintiff's sister Rathnavalli. Ext.B5 is the assignment deed executed by Rathnavalli in favour of the defendants. According to the plaint averments, the defendants tried to trespass upon plaint A schedule property on the reason that there are some mistakes in the description of boundary.