JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.447 of 2007 are the appellants. Challenge is to the judgment of the Appellate Court, reversing that of the trial Court and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs, seeking mandatory injunction, requiring the defendants to close the doorways in the first item of the second schedule and to remove illegal construction shown as the second item of the second schedule properties.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was purchased by their father, in the name of their grand mother, namely, Peer Fathumal. It is also claimed that the second defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiffs father, along with other brothers filed a partition suit in O.S.No.3 of 1983, in which, the suit property was also shown as items 4 & 5 of sixth schedule. Though the suit for partition was dismissed by the trial Court, upon appeal by the second defendant and his brothers in A.S.No.237 of 1991, this Court granted a preliminary decree for partition, declaring 4/6th share of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.3 of 1983 in the sixth schedule property. A review application was filed by the present plaintiffs' father, seeking review to confine the decree in respect of It