K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

1. A defeated plaintiff is the appellant. Though suit had been earlier decreed, on appeal by defendants 1 to 6 and another one by the 8th defendant, the decree was reversed. Therefore, this Second Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.

2. The suit was one for injunction. The plaintiff attempted to construct a compound wall surrounding the plaint schedule property. For that purpose, measurement was taken with the assistance of the Surveyor who issued notice to the defendants. The defendants, according to the plaintiff, threatened and trespassed. It was at that stage the suit was instituted for injunction.

3. After evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court found that Ext. A1 document of the year 1950 was sufficient to prove that the plaintiff had right over the plaint schedule properties. The Trial Court also found that Ext. A2, a judgment in O.S.No. 74/1956 of the Subordinate Judge, Palakkad was also sufficient to prove that the property was in the possession of the plaintiff. The decree in that suit was put in execution as is seen from Ext. A3 and A4. Ext. A5 purchase certificate also shows the boundary of the properties. One cent out of the property ma