An injunction requires proof of possession; reversal of clear trial court findings due to misreading evidence constitutes error.

JUDGMENT

The defendant in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction has come up with the present appeal, aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree of the trial court by the First Appellate Court.

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

Originally, the suit was filed by the father-in-law of the 2^nd defendant. Later, the 2^nd defendant was transposed as the 2nd plaintiff. The property belongs to the 2nd plaintiff by virtue of sale deed No.635/1990. The defendant is the owner of the property, situated on the western and the southern side of the plaint schedule property and when attempts were made to annex certain portions of the plaint schedule property to that of the defendant, the suit was instituted. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit, and filed a counterclaim contending that the description of the plaint schedule property is incorrect and that the plaintiffs had included more property in the plaint schedule than what the 2^nd plainti had obtained under sale deed No.635/1990. The 2^nd plaintiff had no title over the plaint schedule property and the description of the plaint schedule property in sale deed No.635/1990 is wrong and against the description in the prior document No.5311/1986. The original 2^nd defendant/the additional plaintiff does not have the right over the extent of property covered by document No.5311/1986. On the eastern and the southern side of the property, both the plaintiffs and the legal heirs of one Abdul Rashid Labba are having properties therein. Only 21½ meter length of property is lying adjacent to the 1^st defendant’s property on the northern side of the 2^nd plaintiff's property. There is a barbed wire along with the boundary and that after the ex parte injunction, the plaintiffs themselves destroyed the same and that the defendant never attempted to trespass into the plaint schedule property. Thus, the 1^st defendant sought for fixation of the boundary and a mandatory injunction to remove the fencing made encroaching into the 1^st defendant's property and also to restrain the plaintiffs from trespassing into the counterclaim schedule property. The plaintiffs resisted the counterclaim by filing a written statement. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A3 documents were produced and PW1 to PW3 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B13 documents were produced and DW1 and DW2 were examined. Exts.C1 and C2 are the reports of the Advocate Commissioner, Ext.C1(a) is the rough plan and Ext.C2(a) is the survey plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner. Exts.X1 and X2 were marked as third-party exhibits. The trial court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence found that the plaintiffs have not proved the identity of the property and therefore, rejected the reliefs sought for in the suit and dismissed the suit. As regards the counterclaim, the defendant was found to be entitled to the reliefs and therefore the mandatory injunction was issued to the plaintiffs to remove the barbed wire fence erected by them along the line identified by the Advocate Commissioner. The fixation of the boundary as sought for was granted as per Ext.C2(a) plan separating the boundary of the defendant's property with that of the 2^nd plaintiff's property. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed A.S No.37/2009 before the Sub Court, Attingal. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence found that the trial court was not justified in decreeing the counterclaim and dismissing the suit and accordingly, allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree of the tri