The court emphasized the importance of evidence in boundary disputes and affirmed the appellate court's findings which did not invite interference.

JUDGMENT

The appellants/defendants have approached this Court, being aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.1361 of 2004 rendered by the Additional Munisiff Court-II, Ernakulam, by the Additional District Court -I, Ernakulam in A.S. No.363 of 2009.

2. The plaintiffs sued the defendants in a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstructions to the plaintiffs in the construction of a compound wall on the eastern boundary and putting up a gate on the southern side of the plaint B schedule pathway, and also from trespassing into the plaint B schedule pathway and interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment therein. The appellants/defendants resisted the suit, contending that the description of the plaint A and B schedule properties is incorrect and that the plaintiffs have no right over the western boundary of the 1^st defendant’s property. They denied the allegation of attempting to trespass and cause physical obstruction. Before the trial court, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs and PW1, the 1^st plaintiff himself and PW2 were examined. Exts.C1 to C4(a) are the reports and rough sketches prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of the defendants. No documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by that, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.363 of 2009 before the Additional District Court-I, Ernakulam. The first appellate court allowed the appeal in part and granted a decree of injunction. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri. Babu Karukapadath, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. P. Martin Jose, the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. On considering the submissions raised across the bar, this Court is of the view that no substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal. Pertinently, the appellants/defendants did not even produce the title deed before the Court in evidence. But the Advocate Commissioner, while inspecting, has noted that he has perused the title deed of the defendants/appellants and accordingly fixed the boundary. One of the co-owners of the properties had deposed regarding the claim of the plaintiffs, and therefore, that was found to be sufficient. Since nothing was brought out to dispel the claim of the plaintiffs qua fixation of the boundary by the Advocate Commissioner, the first appellate court was justified in decreeing the suit. The right of the plaintiffs over the plaint B schedule property having been established, it is imperative for this Court to hold that the dispute regarding the boundary of the plaint B schedule property and its resolution by the first appellate court are purely based on the appreciation of the evidence. The findings rendered by the first appellate court do not warrant any interference in exercise of the powers conferred in this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the decree for injunction shall stand finally executed and that the pathway has been clearly demarcated and interlocking tiles have been laid, and the plaintiffs are using the pathway. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that after filing of the present appeal, O.S. No.438 of 2015 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam and the same is pending. The said suit is for recovery of possession over a strip of land which stands trespassed by the appellants. It is also pointed out that the Advocate Commissioner has inspected the property and has filed his report. That be so, it will suffice if this Court holds that the findings