LEELAMMA Vs. KUNJOONJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the suit are the appellants. The case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint is that he obtained the plaint schedule property in terms of Ext.A1 sale deed; that the property on the south of the plaint schedule property belonged to the father of the first defendant and it is in the possession of the first defendant after the death of her father; that the second defendant is a close associate of the first defendant and that the defendants are attempting to destroy the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property with a view to annex a portion of the same to the property in the possession of the first defendant. The relief sought in the suit, in the circumstances, was therefore, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from destroying the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property and from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. A written statement was filed by the defendants stating, among others, that the description of the property obtained by the plaintiff in terms of Ext.A1 sale deed is incorrect; that there is a streamlet immediately on the south of the property obtained by the plaintiff in terms of Ext.A1 sale deed; that there is a 'chira' on the further south of the streamlet; that the streamlet and the 'chira' are part of the property of the father of the first defendant and that the attempt of the plaintiff is to annex the streamlet and chira to the plaint schedule property.

(2.) After the defendants delivered their written statement, the plaintiff amended the plaint and incorporated therein a prayer for declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property and a prayer for fixation of the boundary separating the plaint schedule property and the property on its south in the possession of the first defendant.

(3.) The trial court took the view that in so far as the plaintiff claims that a streamlet is passing through the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff should have impleaded the local Grama Panchayat also as a party to the suit and in the absence of the local Grama Panchayat in the array of parties in the suit, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff challenged the decision of the trial court in appeal. The appellate court found that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree sought for in the suit. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and decreed the suit declaring the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property as identified and shown by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the suit in Ext.C1(b) plan as the plot 'CDEFGHJC'. A decree fixing 'GHJ' line in Exts.C1(b) plan as the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property separating the same from the property in the possession of the first defendant was also granted. The decree for injunction sought by the plaintiff was, however, turned down by the appellate court on the ground that the plaintiff has not established his case that the first defendant has attempted to encroach upon the plaint schedule property. The defendants are aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court and hence the second appeal.