Dispute regarding of fixation of boundaries between plaintiff and defendants.

1. In both the above second appeals, plaintiff in the respective suits are the appellants. O.S.No.251 of 1996 was filed by the appellant in S.A.No.1772 of 1998. O.S.No.227 of 1996 was filed by the appellant in S.A.No.136 of 1999. Both the suits were filed in District Munsifs Court, Padmanabhapuram.

2. Material averments of the case may be summarised thus:Under Exs.A-1 to A-4, plaintiff, in O.S.No.251 of 1996 purchased the plaint schedule property having an extent of 8 acres and 80 cents in Survey Nos.113/2 and 115/2 of Thirparappu Village, Kalkulam Taluk. Those documents were executed by none other than the defendants in that suit. All these properties originally belonged to one George and Soosammal George, and they sold the property to one Sankaran, first defendant in that suit. Sankaran executed Exs.A-1 to A-4 in favour of plaintiffs who claim to be in possession of the plaint schedule property. The reason for filing the suit was, there is no separating boundary between the property purchased by them and the remaining property retained by their vendor. They wanted fixation of boundary and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. In the written statement filed by defendants, they contended that plaintiffs therein are not entitled to the property. It is their case that the entire property in Survey Nos.113/2 and 115/2 is having only an area of 23 acres and 95 cents out of which they have already sold 23 acres and 60 cents out of which they have already sold 23 acres and 60 cents in favour of Satyadas Estate, and what remains is only 30 cents. (1st defendant sold another 5 cents also). Plaintiffs who claim 8 acres and 60 cents are not entitled to have the boundaries put up on the basis of Exs.A-1 to A-4. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. O.S.No.227 of 1996 was filed by second defendant in O.S.No.251 of 1996 while she was a minor. Pending suit, she attained majority, and she has been recorded as such. According to her, she is in possession of the very same property on the basis of the sale deed taken in her name in 1981. She is in absolute possession. She wants to restrain the defendants (who are plaintiffs in the other suit, viz O.S.No.251 of 1996) from interfering with her possession.

5. Both the above suits were clubbed together, and evidence was taken in O.S.No.251 of 1996. Exs.A-1 to A-23 were marked on the side of plaintiffs and Ex.B-1 was marked on the side of defendants. Commissioner was also deputed to demarcate the line or boundary after identifying the plaint schedule property. The Commissioners report has been marked as Ex.C-1 and plan as Ex.C-

2. First plaintiff Gnanapraksam examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of defendants.

6. The trial court, after considering the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.251 of 1996 are entitled for demarcation of boundaries as found by the Commissioner. One half of the expenses for putting up the boundaries was also directed to be recovered from first defendant. The trial court found that the defendants cannot dispute the title of the plaintiffs when they themselves were parties to the document. The trial court found that the contention that 23 acres and 60 cents were sold and only 30 cents remains to cannot be accepted when the property covered under Ex.B-1 has not been identified by defendants. Believing the evidence of P.W.1, the trial court found that the plaintiffs are in possession under Exs.A-1 to A-4, and they are entitled to have the boundaries fixed as prayed for.

7. The suit filed by defendants as O.S.No.227 of 1996 was dismissed on the ground that they have not adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary, and the cause of action has not been proved.

8. Against the said judgment, second defendant in O.S.No.251 of 1996 who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.227 of 1996, p