JUDGMENT

This R.S.A has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.52/2008 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Muvattupuzha which arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.48/2006 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha.

2. (Parties would hereafter be referred as per their status before the trial court). The suit was one for fixation of boundary and prohibitory injunction. First plaintiff obtained undivided half right over the plaint schedule property by virtue of settlement deed No.6597/2006 executed by her husband. The property is jointly possessed by the plaintiffs which is lying in 'L' shape. Defendant is the owner of property situated on the south western side of plaint schedule property. After purchase of property by the defendant, boundary was reconstructed by the defendants.

When the defendant purchased property, there was an old boundary on the eastern and northern side of the property purchased by him. For the purpose of selling his property defendant started to renovate the old building in his property for which he demanded some portion of the property on the south western side of the plaint schedule property and that was refused by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, defendants trespassed into the plaint schedule property at a length of 2 ft. on the eastern side of the kayyala and on the northern side of the defendants' property and demolished the western boundary kayyala of plaint schedule property and attempted to join with the defendants' property. So, it is necessary to fix the western boundary of the plaint schedule property and the defendants' property. Permanent prohibitory injunction is also sought for restraining the defendants from trespass and demolition of boundary and interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the plaint schedule property.

3. First defendant filed written statement contending that the plaint schedule property is not identifiable. Plaintiffs have not obtained the entire plaint schedule property by virtue of the deed No.6597/2006. The property description of the deed is with respect to half right of over 10 cents of property. That half right is not separately shown. The location of the above property is not described. No executable decree can be passed with the description of the plaint. Plaintiff has not obtained possession over the plaint schedule property. It is not lying in 'L' shape. Demarcating the defendants' property and the above described 10 cents of property, there is kattukallu kayyala on the southern side of 10 cents. There is no boundary on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. Plaint schedule property is not demarcated on all sides. There is no difference with respect to their boundaries from the date of purchase. He had entered into an agreement for sale of property due to financial difficulties. He has neither sought for plaintiffs property nor attempted to demolish the boundary kayyala of the plaint schedule property. Defendant has no objection for conducting survey measurements. There is no connection between the measurement of plaintiffs property and sale of defendant's property. Suit has been filed to obstruct the sale of defendant's property. Defendant obtained 5 cents of property on the southern and western side of plaintiffs' property by virtue of sale deed No.3591/2005. Soon after purchase, he constructed a building thereon. After the filing of the suit, plaintiffs and agent trespassed into the defendant's property and demolished the hollow bricks construction demarcating the defendant's courtyard. So, the attempt of the plaintiff, is to grab his property. If it is shown that the plaintiffs are having any right over any portion of his property, it is lost by adverse possession.

4. Second defendant remained exparte. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 and A2 marked from the side of the plaintiff. Exts.C1 to C3(a) were also marked. There was no defence evidence.

5. Learned Munsiff, on evaluating the facts and circumstances and evidence, dismi