The failure to join necessary parties in a boundary dispute renders the suit invalid, and grave errors in property identification necessitate reversal of trial court decisions.

JUDGMENT

The 5 defendant in OS No.31 of 1997 on the files of the Munsiff th Court, Haripad, in a suit for fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction, is the appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants in accordance with their status before the trial court.

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

The plaintiff claimed that 7.30 Ares (18 cents) in Survey No.187 of 34, which is included as item No.1 of the plaint, and 2 cents with building in item No.2, belong to the plaintiff by virtue of Exts.A2 and A3 documents. The total extent of the property covered by Ext.A2 document is 87 cents, and that 87 cents was obtained by the plaintiff as a single plot which lies in Survey Nos.1043 and 1091/183 of Arattupuzha Village. The Panchayat road was constructed through the middle portion of 87 cents of the property obtained by the plaintiff out of the land relinquished by the plaintiff. After construction of the Panchayat road, certain portions of the property obtained by the plaintiff fell on the western side of the Panchayat road and certain portions on the eastern side. Out of the properties lying in the western side of the Panchayat road, the plaintiff assigned 50 cents to one Ponnappan lying on the southern side of this extent of the property. The properties of the plaintiff on the western side of the Panchayat road are lying in Re-Survey No.187/11 and the property on the eastern side of the Panchayat road is lying in Re-Survey No.187/34. The plaint schedule property is the portion of the property obtained by the plaintiff lying on the eastern side of the Panchayat road in Re-survey No.187/34. The property lying on the southern side of the plaint schedule item No.1 is the property of the 1 defendant. The eastern side st of the property of item No.1 are the properties of defendants 2 and 5 and the properties lying on the northern side of the plaint schedule item No.1 are the properties of defendants 3 and 4. Even though there are survey stones demarcating the properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, there are no clear demarcating boundaries in between these properties. The 5 defendant encroached on a portion of about 2 th cents from the plaint schedule property during the short period of the absence of the plaintiff. The said portion of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 2 cents is the property described as plaint item No.2. Though the plaintiff demanded the 5 defendant to give th vacant possession, the same was declined. The defendants entered appearance. The 1 defendant appeared and admitted the claim.

Defendants 2st and 5 filed a written statement opposing the plaint relief. According to the 5 defendant, the encroachment into the portion of th the plaint schedule item No.1 was denied. It was further contended that even if the plaintiff had any right over the property, the same was lost by adverse possession.

3. In support of the contentions, the plaintiff produced Exts.A1 to A9 documents and the defendants produced Exts.B1 to B4. The Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed for local investigation, filed Exts.C1 and C2 series consisting of plans and reports. Exts.C3 and C4 are the additional reports produced by the Advocate Commissioner. PW1 to PW5 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. DW1 to DW3 were examined on behalf of the defendants. The certified copy of the plan field No.BC18/187, Arattupuzha Village was produced as Ext.X1. Based on the material evidence and pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-

“1. Is the plaintiff entitled to fix the boundaries as prayed for? If so, which are those boundary lines?

2.Is the prayer for injunction allowable?

3. Relief and costs.”

Thereafter, the trial court also framed the additional issues 4 and 5, which read as