JUDGMENT

The defendant in a suit, O.S. No.220 of 2009, for fixation of boundary and recovery of possession has come up in this appeal, contending that the findings rendered by the courts below are perverse.

2. The plaintiffs sued the appellant/defendant in a suit for fixation of boundary and recovery of possession. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that he had perfected the title by adverse possession. Therefore, the question was whether the fixation of boundary can be granted in respect of plaint item Nos.1 and 2. The title of the plaintiffs was not disputed. But then, the exact identity was the real dispute. Along with the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, a separate suit, O.S. No.318 of 2009, was also filed by the 2^nd plaintiff in O.S. No.220 of 2009 seeking for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial court, on joint trial of the suits, decreed both the suits and found that in the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, a fixation of boundar