MOIDEEN S/O KUNDANTHODIKA AHAMMED Vs. KUNHIRAMA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of title, concurrently lost before the courts below, is in appeal.

(2.) The facts in nutshell leading to the dispute are as follows :

(3.) The respondent opposed the suit contending that the appellant has no manner or right or possession over plaint A schedule property. His predecessor-in-title had also no possession over plaint A schedule property. Plaint A schedule is not part of plaint B schedule property. Plaint A schedule property was not included in Ext.A1 lease. The properties belonging to the respondent's tharawad was partitioned as per Ext.B1 partition deed dated 23-09-1956. According to the appellant, he is seeking relief in respect of item No.10 shown in the C schedule to Ext.B1 partition deed, whereas the defendant would contend that plaint A schedule property is not part of the above property and it is a part and parcel of item No.4 in C schedule to Ext.B1. The defendant has a case that there is a ridge to separate the property in the possession of the plaintiff and that of the defendant. It is the case of the defendant that there were boundary trees, which were cut and removed by the plaintiff before institution of O.S No.87 of 1985. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any of the reliefs.