No substantial questions of law arise in second appeal where lower courts' factual findings on title, admissions, and commissioner's report are not perverse.

JUDGMENT

Defendants 2 and 3, in a suit for recovery of possession, permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction has come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against them.

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

2.1. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the children of one Elanjimittathu Thomman. The deceased 1^st plaintiff is the widow of late Elanjimittathu Thomman and mother of plaintiffs 2 to 7. Plaint ‘A’ schedule property comprises of 6 cents of land in Sy. Nos. 524/2 and 3 of Maradu Village obtained by the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 7. The plaint ‘A’ schedule property is included as schedule ‘B’ to the partition deed No. 1511/56 of Thripunithura Sub Registry and are lying in Sy. Nos. 524/2 and 3. Sy. No. 524/2 was later subdivided as 524/5 of Maradu Village. The 1^st defendant has some property on the northern side of the plaint schedule property, and it is contended that a portion of the property was lost by merging with the road due to the constant use of the property as a road by the people of the locality.

2.2. O.S. No. 1269 of 1996 was filed against the plaintiffs 1, 2, 4 and 7 by the 1^st defendant for injunction in respect of 2 cents of land in Sy. No. 523/1 and 523/4 claiming title and possession as per partition deed No. 3343/87. Later, the suit was ‘not-pressed’ by the 1^st defendant and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the 1^st defendant attempted to assign a portion of plaint ‘A’ schedule property to the 2^nd defendant and that when the 2^nd plaintiff visited the property, it was found that a portion of ‘A’ schedule property was encroached by the defendants. It is contended that the 1st defendant did not have any property in Sy. Nos. 524/2 and 3 of Maradu village. The defendants are trying to make constructions in the ‘B’ schedule property and are likely to tamper with the boundaries and in the nature of plaint ‘B’ schedule property, the defendants have no right to change the character of the plaint schedule property.

2.3. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants 2 and 3 removed the barbed fencing separating the ‘B’ schedule property from the property of the defendants and encroached upon an extent of 0.376 sq. links of ‘B’ schedule property and constructed a new compound wall and reduced the width of the access of ‘B’ schedule property. Thus, a prayer for recovery is also prayed for.

2.4. The 1^st defendant contested the suit by contending that the 6 cents of the property obtained by the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 7 and the husband of the 1st plaintiff consisted of 3 cents each in Sy. Nos. 524/2 and 3 of Maradu Village. Out of the 3 cents in Sy. No. 524/2, 1.358 cents was in occupation of one George as kudikidappu and then it was assigned to him as per Order in O.A. No. 3184/70 dated 19.09.1972. The predecessor of the plaintiffs had obtained 4.642 cents after adjusting the kudikidappu. The defendant obtained ownership and possession of 2 cents, consisting of 1.250 cents in Sy. 524/4 and 0.750 cents in Sy. No. 523/1 of Maradu Village as per ‘B’ schedule to partition deed No. 3343/87 of Thripunithura Sub Registry. The 2^nd defendant contested the suit by adopting the contentions of the 1^st defendant in the written statement. After amendment, an additional written statement was filed by the 2^nd defendant. The 3rd defendant resisted the suit by contending that the 2nd defendant is a company, duly represented by its Director and, therefore, it is not a necessary party.

2.5. By judgment dated 19.02.2003, the suit was dismissed.

Aggrieved, A.S. No. 131 of 2003 was preferred by the pl