Boundary fixation is maintainable without possession recovery when title is undisputed and encroachment is minimal.

EASWARAN S., J.

---------------------------------- R.S.A. No.718 of 2018 -------------------------------------

Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2025 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in a suit for fixation of boundary and mandatory and prohibitory injunction has come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree granted by the Additional District Court - II, Mavelikkara in A.S. No.193 of 2012, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No.344 of 2010 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The defendants 2 and 3 are the wife and son of the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant has two other children named Thampi and Sandhya, and the plaintiff is the wife of Thampi. The plaint A schedule property belonged to the plaintiff by virtue of the sale deed No.2037 of 2002 of Keerikad SRO. The plaint B schedule property belonged to the 1^st defendant by virtue of sale deed No.403 of 1995 of the Keerikad SRO, and he is residing in the house situated therein with his family. After the marriage between the plaintiff and the son of the 1^st defendant, they resided in the house situated in the plaint B schedule property and shared the common household. While so, the 1^st defendant executed a settlement deed No.101/2007 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 with respect to the plaint schedule property, reserving his life interest. The settlement deed is only a sham document, and that on 30.9.2010, the plaintiff was ousted from the shared household. The plaintiff preferred a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. According to the plaintiff, the plaint B schedule property is situated on the southern side of the plaint A schedule property, and that there is no boundary separating the plaint A and B schedule properties. It was contended that the defendants, who are inimical towards the plaintiff, are taking advantage of the lack of boundary between the properties and are attempting to encroach on the plaint A schedule property. Hence, the suit was preferred. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff has no right title and interest over the plaint A schedule property. The sale deed executed was only a sham document, and it was intended only as a security for the amount received from her before her marriage with Thampi. The marriage between the plaintiff and Thampi was solemnised on 30.11.2002. It was agreed that the plaintiff will reconvey the property as and when the defendants repay the amount. Though the plaintiff obtained a residence order to reside in the house situated in plaint B schedule property she never resided there, and that the defendants have challenged the said issue before the higher forum. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 document was produced, and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the commission report and the plan. The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to measure out plaint A and B schedule properties and fix the southern boundary of plaint A schedule property. If so, through which line?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to put up boundary through the line so fixed?

3. Whether any portion of the house in plaint B schedule property protrudes to plaint A schedule property? If so, are the defendants liable to demolish that portion?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for?

5. Reliefs and costs.

3. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the contention of the defendants that