An appeal must arise from a substantial question of law; findings on evidence appreciation do not warrant re-evaluation in absence of clear legal error.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction has come up in the present appeal, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against him by the Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda, in O.S. No.2087 of 2012, as well as the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, in A.S.

No.150 of 2016.

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

As per the averments in the plaint, the plaint A schedule property was obtained by one Paru, the second wife of Raman, as per Pattayam No.399/1970 issued by the Special Thahsildar Land Tribunal, Thrissur. The plaintiff is the son of Paru. The defendants are the children of Vasu, who is the son of Raman in his first wedlock. It is stated that, on the death of Paru, the property was devolved upon the plaintiff, his brother Sasi and sister Omana and the defendants have no right over the property. As per Pattayam in favour of Paru, the property is comprised in Survey No.4/1. According to the plaintiff, the said ‘4’ refers to the block number of the property and the property covered by the said Pattayam is situated in survey 1136/1. From the A schedule property, late Paru had alienated 52 cents. The remaining property in the A schedule after alienation is plaint B and C schedules. In between B and C schedules, the property alienated by Paru is situated. The property obtained by Biju, the son of the plaintiff, is also lying adjacent to B and C schedule properties. At the time of alienation of the property of Paru in favour of Joseph, it was mistakenly stated that on the eastern boundary of the property situates the property of Vasu, whereas originally, on the eastern boundary of the property situates the property of Paru. At the time of alienation of the property in favour of Joseph, the said Vasu, and his father, Raman, had no property on the eastern side of the said property. Moreover, the eastern boundary shown in the title deed of Joseph is also not correct. C schedule is the property covered by Pattayam in favour of Paru, and it is comprised in survey No.1136/1, and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment B and C schedule properties for and on behalf of its owners. On 12.7.2012, the defendants threatened that they would trespass into B schedule property and reduce the same into possession and hence the suit. The defendants contested the suit by contending that there are no A and B schedule properties in existence as per the description of the same shown in the plaint. It is contended that the Patta issued in favour of Paru is only provisional and could be finalised only after the demarcation of the area, after conducting a survey. In the year 1970, the property in possession of the 3^rd party was not obtained by Paru as per the Patta. The Pattayam can be obtained only for vacant property in possession of the government or the property in possession of Paru. The father of the defendants, Vasu, was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property even prior to 1970, and he was conducting agricultural operations in the same after fixing the boundary for the property in his possession. The defendants have already filed an application for Patta with respect to the property, and they are entitled to get the same. Moreover, the defendants contended that the plaintiff had filed the suit in order to grab the property of the defendants and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. It was also contended that there is no property for Paru on the eastern side of the property of Joy, and that the property obtained by Raman was alienated by him in favour of one Ambadan Chandran, and that, on the western boundary of the said property, the property of Paru is situated. The other contentions are also raised. Before the trial court, Exts