JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below, dismissing the suit filed for declaration, consequential injunction and also for putting up boundaries on the northern and eastern borders of the suit property, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaint 'A' schedule property is a specific plot of 53 cents, consists of 'B' schedule items 1 and 2. Plaint 'A' schedule property and other properties originally belonged to different branches of Nair Tarward. As per the partition effected among the members of the Tarward, 48 cents in suit Survey No. 4221, inclusive of 'B' schedule item No. 1 and other properties fell to the share of Saraswathi Ammal, the 10th defendant. The said 10th defendant also redeemed the previous mortgage executed by her Karnavan as per the release deed dated 03.01.1956. Out of which the 'B' schedule item 1, an extent of 22 cents was sold to the first plaintiff, under registered sale deed dated 12.09.1978. Similarly, the 11th defendant's mother viz. Ponnamma Pillai alias Narayani Pillai got 51 cents of land in suit survey No. 4221 under the Tarward partition and her ancestor redeemed a prior mortgage in an extent of 33 cents under the released deed dated 25.02.1963. The above property rights were devolved on the 11th defendant. From the 11th defendant, plaintiffs 1 and 2 purchased the item 2 of the 'B' schedule property, measuring to an extent of 31 cents.

4. Thus the plaintiffs 1 and 2 obtained title and possession over the 'B' schedule property; mutation also been effected in favour of the plaintiffs for 'B' schedule items 1 and 2; patta has also been issued and they are enjoying the property by paying necessary tax. Items 1 and 2 of the 'B' schedule property are two contiguous plots, which lie as a single plot. The same is schedule as 'A' schedule property. There are survey stones and bund on the northern and eastern borders to separate the suit 'A' schedule property from the remaining portion. On the western and southern borders, there are barbed wire fencing. The defendants 1 to 4 and the 5th defendant are in possession of the western side property of the suit 'A' schedule property. The defendants 6 to 9 are residing in the northern side of the suit 'A' schedule property. Defendants 10 and 11 have right to the different portion of the suit survey number. Taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiffs are now residing at Madras, the defendants 1 to 5 gradually removed the existing kayyals on the eastern border of the suit 'A' schedule property. When plaintiffs were attempted to put up a common boundary on the northern and eastern boundaries on 20.02.1986, the defendants 1 to 4 have obstructed them. Thereafter, on 23.02.1986, the defendants 1 to 5 were attempted to trespass into the plaint 'A' schedule property and attempted to put up a boundary inside the 'A' schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit.

5. Defendants 1 to 5 filed written statement denying the allegation of the plaint and stated that one Vasudevan Nair filed a suit in O.S. No. 215 of 1965 and in the above suit one Thomson was the 2nd defendant. The suit was dismissed. Against which, the said Vasudevan Nair filed an Appeal Suit in A.S. No. 57 of 1970 and the same was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the said Vasudevan Nair filed a Second Appeal in S.A. No. 396 of 1974 and the same was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is further stated that the vendor of the plaintiff had no title or possession over the suit schedule property. The Judgment and decree in O.S. No. 215 of 1965 confirms the right, title and possession of the defendants 1 to 5. The Second appeal was dismissed on 26.08.1977. Therefore, the sale deed, executed in favour of the plaintiff dated 12.09.1978, is