The appellate court erred by not admitting the Advocate Commissioner's report, necessitating a remand for fresh consideration of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

(EASWARAN S., J.)

The appellants herein are the defendants in O.S. No.336 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Munsiff Court, Kannur and the appellants in A.S. No.59 of 2014 on the files of the Sub Court, Kannur.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs, filed O.S. No.336 of 2012 for a prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the appellants. The plaint schedule property, according to the plaintiffs, belongs to Sri. T.K. Vijayan, who is the husband of the 1^st plaintiff and father of 2^nd plaintiff. The aforesaid Sri.T.K. Vijayan acquired the plaint schedule property as two plots, i.e., 24 cents and 10.5 cents and the property is lying as a single plot. The property having the extent of 24 cents was owned by him as per partition deed No.2620/1980 of SRO Kannur and the property having the extent of 10.5 cents was owned by him as per partition deed No.1451/1986 of SRO, Kannur. The compound wall was constructed within the plaint schedule property by Sri.T.K. Vijayan and the defendants (appellants herein) have no right over the plaint schedule property or the compound wall. The defendants purchased the property from one Yasoda’s share in partition deed No.2620 of 1980 out of which Sri. T.K. Vijayan also derived right, title and interest. On 3.7.2012, the defendants trespassed into the property and demolished the compound wall constructed of laterite stones on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property adjoining the defendant’s property. The compound wall, which was 1‰ meters height, was demolished up to a length of 9 meters. Therefore, the Suit was filed seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and removing the iron gate and pillar in the plaint schedule property. A mandatory injunction was also sought to reconstruct the compound wall on the eastern side of the property adjoining the defendants property at the height of 1‰ meters and length of 9 meters using laterite stones. The defendants appeared and contested the case. It was the specific case of the 1^st defendant that the 22 cents of land in R.S. No.47/7 of Elayavoor Amsom Chovva Desom and undivided half right in 2.5 cents of property in the same survey number which is situated on the western and southern side of 22 cents of property was given to them by way of document No.4073 of 2008 of SRO Kannur. The property of the 2^nd defendant is shown as two items in the schedule of the documents. The first item is 22 cents of property, and the second item is 2.5 cents, of which the 2^nd defendant has the undivided half right. It was contended that the 2.5 cents of property is used as a way for ingress and egress by the 2^nd defendant as well as the deceased T.K. Vijayan. The compound wall lying on the northern and eastern side of 2.5 cents of property where the 2^nd defendant has an undivided half right was constructed by the predecessors of the 2^nd defendant, and the said compound wall is situated in the property of the 2^nd defendant. The gate over which the plaintiffs seek mandatory injunction is lying on the property of the defendants and that it always remains closed. On 3.6.2012, when the 2^nd defendant visited the property, he realised that the plaintiffs trespassed into the property on the southern side and constructed a compound wall. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exts.A1 to A5 documents were produced and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the defendants/appellants. The ex- parte Advocate Commissioner was taken out whose report and plan were marked as Exts.C1 and C2. PW1 and PW2 were examined on the side of the plaintiffs and DW1 was examined on the side of the defendants. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Are the plaintiffs in possession of plaint schedule property?

2. Did the defendants demolish compound wall on the eastern side of plai