An appellant must establish valid property rights in boundary disputes, failure to do so results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S No.317/2015 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavoor is the appellant herein. The suit was preferred for fixation of boundary, mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction. According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to the plaintiff by virtue of document No.6144/2011, and that the said property was settled in favour of the husband of the plaintiff by document bearing No.730/1959. The property of the defendants lies in the western side of the plaint A schedule property and is scheduled as plaint B schedule property and the northern side of the plaint A schedule property is the property of one Thozhuthungal George. The defendants are the son and daughter-in-law of the plaintiff’s husband’s brother Mathai. When attempts were made to trespass into the property of the plaintiff, the suit was filed. According to the plaintiff, she is doing cultivation in the property and therefore, in order to protect her interest, the suit is preferred.

2. The defendants appeared and contested the suit by pointing out that the plaintiff had no right, title, or interest over the property. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the father of the 1^st defendant and after his death, the properties were inherited by the 1st defendant, his brothers and sisters. Now the 1st defendant’s brothers are in inimical terms and therefore, the plaintiff purposefully avoided to implead them as the parties to the suit. The property with an extent of 23 cents in old survey No.5/5 of Mazhuvannoor Village belonged to the father of the 1^st defendant, Mathai and mother, Sosa, by virtue of document No.699/59 of Aikkaranadu SRO. As per the resurvey records, the extent of the property is 30 cents in re-survey No.324/6 in block No.46 of Mazhuvannoor village. The mother of the defendants, Sosa, assigned the co-ownership right over the property to the father, Mathai, by virtue of Sale Deed No.3303/80 of Aikkaranad SRO. In 1981, the father mortgaged the property to Social Welfare Centre, Kury Unit and, on default of the father of the 1^st defendant to pay the Kury amount, the company filed a suit before the Sub Court, North Paravoor as O.S. No.256/82. The Kury company acquired the said property by virtue of the sale certificate issued by the Sub Court and thereafter the property was purchased by the father, Mathai, as per sale deed No.551/93. One Aliyamma filed O.S.No.177/2010 in which the 1^st defendant filed a counter claim, which was initially dismissed. Later, A.S.No.116/11 was filed by the 1^st defendant and the appeal was allowed and the counter claim was decreed.

3. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A2 series documents were marked, and PWs 1 and 2 were examined, whereas on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B6 documents were marked and DW1 was examined. The advocate commissioner, who was appointed to locally inspect the property, filed Exts.C1, C2, C1(a) and C2(a) documents and marked. He was examined as CW1.

4. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence of CW1 and Exts.C2 & C2(a), found that the property covered by Ext.A1 document is the property covered by the counter claim in O.S.No.177/2010. As per the reports of the advocate commissioner, Exts.C2 and C2(a), the property covered by document Nos. 699/59 and 3303/80 are one and the same property, that is scheduled in the plaint. The boundaries within which the property covered by those documents situates in, as described is within the boundary of the entire property comprised in survey Nos. 35/5 and 35/6. Ultimately, the trial court found that the plaintiff had not established possession over the plaint A schedule prop