The courts affirmed property rights based on established boundaries, rejecting claims of irreparable harm without substantial legal grounds.

EASWARAN S., J ----------------------------

R.S.A. No.555 of 2012 ----------------------------

Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026 JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom in O.S.No.239 of 2003 as affirmed in A.S.No.267 of 2006 of the Additional District Court (Adhoc-I), Kottayam. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant and his men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. The defendant, on the other hand, filed a counterclaim for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiffs and their men from obstructing the defendant to construct compound wall protecting his property. Both the suit and the counterclaim were taken up together. On the basis of Ext.C2 Commission Report and Ext.C2(a) Measurement Plan, the trial court found that the defendant is entitled to succeed in the counterclaim and therefore dismissed the suit and issued a prohibitory injunction, restraining the counterclaim defendant/plaintiff herein from obstructing the defendant from constructing a new granite wall for protecting his property. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.267 of 2006. The 1^st Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence found that in Ext.C2(a) plan prepared with the assistance of surveyor, the property in survey number 297/11A was demarcated. It was further found that the defendant's property is situated in Sy. No.297/11, whereas the 1^st plaintiff's property is in Sy.No.297/13. Thus, the existence of the old boundary wall in Sy.No.297/11A, which is the western boundary of the defendant’s property, was found. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was confirmed and hence the present appeal.

2. Heard Sri.Lal K.Joseph, learned counsel for the appellants.

3. On consideration of the submissions raised on behalf of the appellants, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, inasmuch as the findings of the courts below are based purely on appreciation of the evidence. Admittedly, the property of the plaintiffs falls within Sy.No.297/13, whereas the fixation of boundary now sought for and granted is in Sy.No.297/11A.

4. However, the learned counsel for the appellants would submits that the apprehension of the plaintiffs/appellants is that when the boundary wall is constructed as ordered by the trial court, it is likely to cause damage to the appellants’ property because of the erosion of soil.

5. This Court is of the considered view that, this is not a matter which should gain attention in these proceedings. At any rate, it is pointed out that till today construction of the boundary has not been done. Therefore, suffice to say, the appellants/plaintiffs are always be at liberty to assert the civil rights as and when any disturbance occurs to the enjoyment of their property covered under Sy No.297/13 due to any construction if any undertaken by the defendants as ordered by the courts below.

With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-