The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a property dispute case, it is crucial to properly identify the property, and if the issue of property identification is raised, the matter should be remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration.

P. Bhavadasan, J.

The defendants in O.S. 1176 of 1998 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha are the appellants. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court.

2. The plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner in possession of the suit properties, which consists of two items as per Ext.A1 dated 4.1.1989 and Ext.A2 dated 27.7.1998. Plaint item No.2 lies on the east, south and west of item No.1 property. According to the plaintiff, both the properties lie within well defined boundaries and demarcated from the rest of the properties. The second defendant is said to be residing in a hut in the property situate on the southern side of plaint items 1 and 2. The first defendant is the relative of second defendant and he resides with her. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are attempting to trespass into the suit property and reduce it into their possession. Therefore the suit.

3. The defendants resisted the suit. It is pointed out that the suit was a counter blast to O.S. 1021 of 1998 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha, which has been filed by the defendants against the plaintiff. They disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. They claimed to be the absolute owners and in possession of the same. They denied that they had trespassed into the property owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The allegation that the suit properties were lying well separated and bounded on all sides from the other properties was also denied. On the basis of these contentions, they prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A7 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants had D.W.1 examined. On an evaluation of the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not got the properties properly identified and therefore dismissed the suit.

5. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal as A.S. 153 of 2000 before the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and decreed the suit. Hence the appeal.

6. The following questions of law are seen formulated in the memorandum of second appeal:

"(i) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in upsetting the decree of the trial court on the premise that the defendants were not able to produce cogent evidence with regard to the ownership and possession of the plaint schedule property.

(ii) Whether the lower appellate court was legally justified in granting a decree of injunction in favour of the appellant in the face of contradictory statement of plaintiff while deposing and without any proof of identity of the plaint schedule property as P.W.1.

(iii) Whether the court below is justified in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff without proof of actual physical possession of the plaint schedule property."

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant filed a verified petition raising few other questions of law which read as follows:

"(iv) Whether the lower appellate court was legally justified in framing point No.1 and entering a finding thereon ignoring the fact that it was not at all raised as an issue by the trial court?"

(v) Was not the lower appellate court bound to frame an additional issue, viz. whether the plaint schedule properties are identifiable and referred the same for trial and finding thereon to the trial court under 41, Rule 25 read with section 107(c) of CPC."

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower appellate court was not justified in decreeing the suit in the light of the findings arrived at by the trial court. Attention was drawn to the fact that the defendants had specifically disputed that the properties were lying well demarcated from the rest of the properties and that they could be easily identified. In spite of the definite stand