MARIARPUTHAM NADACHIA ARPUTHA MARY Vs. GEORGE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant who failed in both the Courts below is the appellant. The respondents filed the suit for demarcation of the boundaries between S. Nos. 4212 and 4211 of Valvachagoshtam Village, Kalkulam Taluk, and for putting up the northern boundary wall of S. No. 4212 at the cost of the appellant and the second defendant and for recovery of Rs. 10 as damages in respect of the cocoa, nuts taken away from the tree standing on S. No. 4212. S. No. 4312 belonging to the respondents lies south of S. No. 4211 belonging to the appellant. The case of the respondents was that there was a bund separating the two fields and that it was removed by the appellant and the second defendant on 32nd, May, 1967 and that the appellant took away coconuts valued at Rs. 10 from the aforesaid cocoanut tree.

(2.) THE defence was that on the southern boundary of the appellant's property bearing S. No. 4211, there is small bund, now in ruins, and that it is used as a footpath and that the appellant did not remove any bund and there is no necessity to restore any bund or wall. The appellant claimed the cocoanut tree as her own and contended that the respondents are not in possession of any cocoanut tree. She further contended that the land in her possession is higher in level than the respondents' land and that even if any portion of S. No. 4212 is included in that higher level land the respondents have lost their title to that property by her adverse possession.

(3.) THE appellant took the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court found that no mud kasala separated the two fields and no bund had been removed by the appellant and the second defendant and that the respondents should put up the boundary line at their cost on their property bearing S. No. 4212. The learned Judge agreed with the learned District Munsif that the cocoanut tree stood on the respondents' land bearing S. No. 4212 but differed from the learned District Munsif and held that there was no proof that the appellant and the second defendant plucked any cocoanut therefrom. However, the learned Judge has granted a decree declaring that the respondents are entitled to put up a boundary in their extent at their own cost demarcating their survey number 4212 from the northern survey number 4211 as per the Commissioner's plan Exhibit A -4 and thus modified the trial Court's decree and dismissed the appeal.