JUDGMENT :

This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.293/2012 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Aluva. The appellants assail decree and judgment in A.S.No.51/2017 on the files of the Additional District Court - 11, North Paravur, whereby, the appellate court reversed the finding of the Munsiff, granting the reliefs sought for in the suit. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal. The respondents herein are the defendants in the original suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

3. Perused the Lower Court Records, in particular with reference to the title deed of the plaintiffs and survey plan.

4. I shall refer the parties as 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants. hereinafter, relegating their status before the trial court, for easy reference.

5. At the time of admission of this appeal, as per order dated 28.10.2021, my learned predecessor raised the following substantial questions of law.

"1) Is not the interpretation of the lower appellate court on Exts.Al to A6 in relation to the rights of the appellants as claimed in the suit incorrect and illegal?

2) Is not the lower appellate court justified in discarding Exts.Cl and C1(a), when the same are not assailed by the respondents by filing any objection?

3) Is not the finding of the lower appellate court that the plaint D schedule property is imaginary and there is no trespass upon the plaint C schedule, contrary to sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, especially when the commission report and plan show otherwise?"

6. Originally plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of recovery possession of the plaint D schedule property on the strength of title. That apart, the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction also was sought for. According to the plaintiffs, plaint D schedule is the property covered by assignment deed No.4066/1978 executed by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants and the defendants encroached upon the same and a portion of the same now possessed by them.

7. The defendants resisted the suit claiming absolute title and possession over their property on the strength of their title deed, after denying the reliefs sought for in the plaint. Further they also denied encroachment as alleged by the plaintiffs.

8. The trial court ventured the matter, after raising necessary issues for determination, Exts.Al to A10 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. Exts.Cl and C1(a) were marked and Cwl and CW2 were examined. No evidence let in by the defendants.

9. On an appreciation of evidence, the trial court found that the commissioner located the property covered by Ext.A2 title deed No.4066/1978 as plots C, Cl and D shown in yellow colour in Ext.C1(a). Accordingly, finding D plot in Ext.C1(a) as the property covered by Ext.A2 in possession of the defendants, vacant possession of plaint D schedule and prohibitory injunction were granted by the trial court as under:

"1) Defendants are directed to surrender vacant possession of plaint D schedule property within one month, failing which the plaintiffs can recover it through the process of court. They are permanently restrained from effecting any constructions or obstructing the plaintiff's enjoyment of the said property.

2) Ext.C1(a) plan shall form part of the decree.

3) Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.”

10. When the matter taken up in the appeal, the first appellate court reversed the verdict of the trial court after scanning the descriptions of the properties mainly relying on resurvey numbers. Accordingly, the appellate court found that D schedule property where suITender was ordered by the trial court is the property in Re.Sy.No.44/14 belonged to the defendants. Consequently, upsetting the verdict of the trial court, the suit was dismissed by allowing the appeal.

11. The leaned counsel for the plaintiffs read out the extent of land covered by Ext.A2, having