The appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying injunction terms without a title claim being made in the original suit.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal arises out of the findings in the A.S No.143/2008 by the Additional District Court (Adhoc-I), Kottayam, which modified the judgment and decree in O.S No.348/2006 on the files of the Additional Munsiff Court, Kottayam.

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

2.1 The plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property having an extent of 6.84 cents covered by document No.2508/2002 of Kottayam Additional SRO. According to the plaintiffs, they had purchased the property from the larger extent of property that belonged to the Diocese of Vijayapuram. It is contended that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property from 1966 onwards and that the defendants tried to encroach upon the property. It is also stated that the south-eastern portion of the plaint schedule property is lying as a tail shaped area having a length of 9.2 meters and a width of about one meter. In the narrow strip of land though lying at a lower level, the plaintiffs have constructed a drainage from their cattle shed through this narrow strip of land. Water connection, electricity lines and telephone lines etc. to their building and the structures therein are also provided through this strip of land. Thus the plaintiffs sought for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or putting up any structures that may encroach upon the plaint schedule property or doing any act that may cause any damage to the drainage or other structures.

2.2 The defendants resisted the suit by contending that the plaintiffs have no right title and interest over the plaint schedule property. It was further contended that the plaint schedule property is in the possession of the defendants and that the defendants preferred a complaint before the District Collector regarding the plaintiffs’ act of conducting a cattle farm in the plaintiffs’ property. It was further contended that after the transfer of property in favour of the defendants, the Diocese of Vijayapuram had preferred a complaint before the survey authority against the defendants and that the tail shaped portion of the property comes under the title of the defendants. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exts.A1 to A7 documents were produced and PW1 and PW2 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B7 documents were produced and DW1 was examined.

2.3 The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the proceedings before the revenue authority were not taken with the plaintiffs in the party array. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs have proved the possession of the property by virtue of report of the Advocate Commissioner and that, going by the description of the property contained in the varies documents produced by the plaintiffs and also Ext.B2 gift deed of the defendants, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of injunction, since the possession of the property in their hand is proved. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal before the Additional District Court, Kottayam, as A.S No.143/2008. By the judgment dated 28.02.2011, the First Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove the title and possession over the narrow strip of land and thus modified the judgment and decree and held that the plaintiffs was entitled to get a permanent prohibitory injunction against the obstruction or damage to the drainage drawn through the tail shaped portion and also a prohibitory injunction against the construction of any permanent