JOSEPH @ JOSE Vs. TOJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the parties are common and the matter, in issue, involved in both these appeals are one and the same, these appeals are heard together and disposed of accordingly.

(2.) The appellant in both the appeals is the plaintiff in O.S. No.169/2008 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Chalakudy, and the respondent is the defendant therein, who filed a counter claim against the plaintiff.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, he obtained the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ext.A1 final decree, in O.S.No.26/2001 on the files of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, and Ext.A2 delivery receipt, issued in the execution proceedings in the aforesaid Original Suit. The said property was surveyed and demarcated by the court Amin and the Surveyor and delivered the same to the plaintiff under Ext.A2. At the time of taking possession of the said property, he had planted concrete posts around the property through the boundary line, as shown by the court Amin and the Surveyor in the delivery report. Except the plaintiff, nobody else have any right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property. The defendant's property is situated on the southern side of the plaint schedule property and six concrete posts that separates the defendant's property from the plaint schedule property. On 8-4-2008, the defendant made an attempt to encroach the southern portion of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff apprehends that the defendant may remove the concrete pillars which separates the plaint schedule property from the southern portion of the property of the defendant. Hence the suit was filed seeking permanent prohibitory injunction.