The plaintiff, who emerged successful before the Trial Court, but lost the case in the appeal before the lower Appellate Court, is the appellant in the present Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed the original suit in O.S.No.22 of 1996 against the respondent herein for the relief of permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property by disturbing the eastern fence of the plaintiff, excavating trench, putting up wall and protruding eaves or sunshades over the suit property which belongs to the appellant herein/plaintiff.

3. The suit property is defined as an extent of 3,488 sq. ft., consisting of the backyard portion measuring 2,513 sq. ft. and the front portion measuring 75 feet x 13 feet = 975 sq. ft., comprised in Survey No.79/15-A situated on the North of Nannilam North Street, Nannilam Town. According to the plaint averments, the entire property comprised in Survey No.79/15 before sub-division was jointly owned by the appellant herein/plaintiff and his brother Rathinasamy and on partition, the Eastern portion measuring 75 feet x 12 feet abutting the road and corresponding backyard of 2,513 sq. ft. came to be allotted to Rathinasamy, whereas the Western portion measuring 75 feet x 13 feet abutting the street and 2,513 sq. ft., forming the backyard corresponding to the said portion came to be allotted to the share of the appellant herein/plaintiff. The further contention of the appellant herein/plaintiff is that, at the time of partition, the boundary was marked by implanting 7 granite stones on the dividing line; that the portion East of the dividing line fell to the share of Rathinasamy, whereas the portion West of the dividing line fell to the share of the appellant herein/plaintiff. Contending further that the portions that fell to the share of the appellant herein/plaintiff and that of his brother Rathinasamy were subdivided and assigned with Survey Nos.79/15-A and 79/15-B respectively and that the respondent/defendant, who purchased the share of Rathinasamy designated with Survey No.79/15-B, was trying to obliterate the fence put up by the appellant herein/plaintiff on the Eastern border of his property and encroach upon the property of the appellant herein/plaintiff, the appellant/ plaintiff approached the Trial Court with the abovesaid suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent herein/defendant.

4. The respondent herein/defendant resisted the suit contending that though in the partition, the plaintiff's share abutting the street was shown to be having an East-West measurement of 13 feet, the actual breadth available is 13-1/2 feet and that in order to suppress the said discrepancy alone, the appellant herein/plaintiff chose to file the suit and take an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property. However, the respondent herein/defendant had taken a plea that she would be satisfied if she was given half (1/2) share in the excess portion over and above 75 feet x 12 feet allotted to her vendor in the partition. Contending further that she was not making any attempt to interfere with the possession of the property of the appellant herein/plaintiff, she prayed that the suit should be dismissed.

5. After framing necessary issues, the learned Trial Judge conducted a Trial, in which, the appellant herein/plaintiff figured as the sole witness (PW-1) and produced 10 documents marked as Exs.A-1 to A-10 on his side, whereas the respondent herein/defendant appeared as the sole witness (DW-1) and produced two documents, marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2 on her side. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed who inspected the property and submitted his report and plan which were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2. A telegram sent by the respondent herein/defendant to the Advocate Commissioner came to be marked as Ex.C-3. During the course of trial, the appellant herein/ plaintiff contended that despite there being an order of temporary injunct