K. Hema, J.

A suit was filed by plaintiffs-respondents before Munsiff Court, for fixation of boundary and recovery of possession of plaint schedule property. After trial, Munsiff Court dismissed suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs-respondents filed an appeal. The Sub Court allowed the appeal and a decree was granted for fixation and demarcation of boundary, with reference to the boundary shown in Ext.C3, Surveyor's plan. A decree for recovery of possession was also granted in respect of the specific plot shown by the Surveyor in Ext.C3-plan and the said plan forms part of the decree. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment, the defendants in the suit has filed this second appeal.

2. Facts briefly: The suit was filed by respondents herein against appellants on the averments that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property, as per Ext.A1, which is a sale deed dated 21.11.1966. Out of the said property, two plots having an extent of 10 cents and 7 cents were sold to one Kamaluddin and Jaleel respectively. Excluding the said property, 8 cents of property are still in possession of plaintiffs, which is fragmented into two pieces: the plot having an extent of about 31 A cents is situated on the south of the 17 cents referred above and it constitutes residential property of plaintiffs. The plot having a balance extent of 4¾ cents is situated on the north of above mentioned 17 cents and it is the plaint schedule property.

3. On 15.1.1993, defendants-appellants allegedly trespassed into plaint schedule property and put up three latrine tanks thereon, taking advantage of absence of visible boundary separating plaint schedule properties from defendants' property on the northern side of plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs approached defendants through mediators and asked them to remove the structures put up in the property but the said request was turned down. The defendants have no right over the plaint schedule property. Hence, according to plaintiffs-respondents, they are entitled to recover possession of plaint schedule properties, and also to get boundary fixed and latrine tanks removed. Hence, the suit.

4. A written statement was filed by defendants stating that suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties, since all co-owners of the disputed property are not made parties to the suit. The plaintiffs have no right over plaint schedule property. The description of the plaint schedule property is not correct. There is a visible demarcation on the northern boundary of plaintiffs' property by an old fencing and there is no necessity to fix northern boundary.

5. The plaint schedule property does not form part of the 25 cents of land covered by Ext.A1 but, it is in possession of defendants for the past more than 50 years. The plaint schedule property is actually, a channel running on the northern boundary of plaintiffs property. The plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of the plaint schedule property. If at all plaintiffs had any nominal right over plaint schedule property. The defendants have perfected title by long, continuous, uninterrupted and open possession for the past more than 50 years. The plaintiffs lost their rights on the plaint schedule property and suit is to be dismissed.

6. The Munsiff Court framed as many as six issues. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of plaintiffs. DW1 and DW2 were examined on the side of defendants. Exts.C3 to C3 were also marked.

7. On consideration of evidence and all matters on record, Munsiff Court found that alleged trespass is not true and dismissed the suit. In appeal, Sub Court held that respondents have title to disputed property which is shown in yellow colour in Ext.C3 and they are also entitled for recovery of possession of the said property and get the boundary fixed and a decree was passed. This second appeal is against the said decree and judgment.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the records. In the mem