1. The defendant in O.S.No.882 of 1991 on the file of the court of the First Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara, who succeeded in the suit, but lost in A.S.No.1151 of 1994, Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, is the appellant.

2. The suit was filed by the respondents for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property, for injunction and for fixation of boundary. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property belonged to Raghava Panicker as per Exhibit A2 partition deed of the year 1950. Raghava Panicker and his wife Ammukutty executed Exhibit A1 settlement deed dated 6.2.1974 in favour of the plaintiffs, who are respectively their son in law and daughter. The plaint schedule property is item No.2 in Exhibit A1 settlement deed. The property of the defendant lies on the southern side of the plaint schedule property. In Exhibit A1, the extent of the property is shown as 5.67 Ares. In the plaint schedule, the extent was shown as 17.5 cents which was later amended as 18.5 cents. The plaintiffs alleged that on 27.10.1991, the defendant tried to demolish the southern boundary and to trespass upon the plaint schedule property.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he contended that Raghava Panicker and Ammukutty did not get right in the plaint schedule property and therefore, they had no right to transfer the property to the plaintiffs. Exhibit A1 settlement deed was not executed by Raghava Panicker and Ammukutty. It was executed fraudulently and signatures of the executants were forged. The plaintiffs and their predecessors did not have title and possession over 17.5 cents. The resurvey was not over and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to file a suit. The property of the defendant on the southern side is a residential compound. The plaint schedule property is a Nilam and it was filled up and coconut trees were planned. The extent of 17.5 cents would take in a portion of the defendant's property. There is an Anjili tree in the defendant's property. The defendant alleged that the suit was filed to see that the plaintiffs get the Anjili tree.

4. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 4 and DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A4, B1 to B3, C1 series and X1 were marked. Execution of Exhibit A1 was proved by examining one of the executants, namely, Raghava Panicker as PW3. The first plaintiff was examined as PW1. An officer of Re-survey Department was examined as PW2 and a neighbour was examined as PW4. On the side of the defendant, the Commissioner and the Village Officer (who prepared Exhibit C1(a) plan) were examined as DWs 1 and 2.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit on the following grounds:

(i) In Exhibit A2 partition deed, executant No.9 Kamalamma did not put her signature. There is no evidence to show that Kamalamma had subsequently assented to the execution of Exhibit A2 and accepted her share. Therefore, Raghava Panicker did not get title to the property as per Exhibit A2 partition deed and therefore, as per Exhibit A1 settlement deed, the plaintiffs did not get any title to the property.

(ii) The extent of the property shown in Exhibit A1 is 5.67 Ares equivalent to 14 cents. In the plaint, the extent was shown as 17.5 cents originally and later, it was amended as 18.5 cents. There is no averment in the plaint as to how the plaintiffs got possession of a larger extent of the property than what was stated in the title deed.

(iii) The description of the plaint schedule property is vague and it is not identifiable.

(iv) The resurvey proceedings have not been finalised.

6. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs have title and possession over the plaint schedule property which was identified as plot A B C D E F G in Exhibit C1(a) plan submitted by the Commissioner. The plaintiffs were also permitted to put up a boundary wall on the no