1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a permanent injunction which was dismissed by the first court but decreed, on appeal, by the lower appellate court. Defendant 1 is the appellant. The case has been argued by both sides before me with reference to Ext. A2 plan and so I am also making use of that plan for stating the case. Plots A and B in Ext. A2 are comprised in survey No. 1411/1A and measure in all 23 cents. Plot A lies in the northwestern portion of this survey number and is bounded on the east and south by plot B. On the north plot A is bounded by a lane and the major portion of that plot is bounded on the west by a property belonging to one Kunhikutty Amma. South of Kunhikuttv Amma's property there is another property shown in the plan as Thankamma's kudiyiruppa and that property lies to the west of the southern portion of plot A and to the west of that part of plot B which lies south of plot A. The property to the south of plot B is a teak plantation which admittedly belongs to the plaintiffs. To the east of plot B lies survey No. 1411/1B which is shown as Koman Nayar's kudiyiruppa in Ext. A2. Koman Nayar purchased this plot, i. e., survey No,1411/IB,