J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for fixation of boundary and also for partition of item no.3 which is the building situated in item no.2 shown in Ext.C2 plan. The plaint schedule property and other properties originally belonged to one Chirutha. It is stated that she obtained that property as per a sale deed of 1089 ME almost corresponding to 1914. Chirutha had two sons; Gopalan and Madhavan. Ext.B1 is the registered assignment deed executed by Gopalan in favour of Paru in 1116 ME almost corresponding to 1941. It is stated therein that Gopalan and Madhavan had orally partitioned the property as per which the southern portion was taken by Gopalan and the northern portion was taken by Madhavan. The northern portion obtained by Madhavan, as per that oral partition was sold to Paru as per Ext.B1. Paru died intestate. Michael, the defendant obtained assignment of Ext.B1 property from the legal heirs of Paru.

2. Ext.A2 is the assignment deed executed by Gopalan, who was holding the southern portion of the property, in favour of the appellant herein (Tomy Sebastian). In that document the property assigned is 82½ cents of land with improvements thereon and