PARUKUTTY VARASSIAR Vs. MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant seeks review of the judgment in the second appeal. As the second appeal was disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the respondent, notice to the respondent in the review petition is dispensed with.

(2.) The second appeal arose from O.S. No. 35/1997 on the files of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Perinthalmanna. The parties are, therefore, referred to in the order as they appear in the said suit.

(3.) The suit was one for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint is that she obtained two items of property from her deceased husband in terms of Ext.A1 assignment deed; that among the said items, one is situated on the northern side of the other; that she sold three cents out of the northern item to the defendant in terms of Ext.A4 assignment deed; that the property covered by Ext.A4 assignment deed is situated on the extremity of the northern item; that in course of time, the defendant trespassed into a portion of the remaining property of the northern item and erected structures. The suit was, therefore, filed for recovery of possession of the portion of the property allegedly trespassed by the defendant and for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the structures erected on the said portion of the property. The trial court decreed the suit. However, in appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the suit. It was aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court that the plaintiff has preferred the second appeal, which was disposed of in terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed.