K.Abraham Mathew, J.—Defendants 5 and 6 challenge the order of remand passed by the District Judge, Thalassery in A.S.No.284 of 2005, in which a cross appeal had been filed.

2. In a partition that took place in 1956 plaint schedule item No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute) was kept in common for the benefit of the tavazhi of the plaintiffs. It is possessed and managed by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other members of the tavazhi. Plaint schedule item No.2 is the northern property adjoining the property in dispute. It is in the possession of the defendants. There is a boundary wall separating the two properties. The defendants trespassed into the property in dispute and made some constructions in their attempt to put up a wall enclosing it. But the attempt was defeated by the plaintiffs and they are still in possession of the property. On these allegations the plaintiffs prayed for a perpetual injunction prohibiting the defendants from trespassing into the property in dispute and for a mandatory injunction directing them to remove the constructions they made in it. The defendants contended that the property in dispute is part of the property