JUDGMENT

Heard counsel for appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Appellant sued respondent Nos.1 and 2 and another in O.S.No.251 of 1997 of court of learned Munsiff, Ranni for decree for fixation of boundary and for prohibitory injunction concerning plaint schedule item Nos.I and II. He was granted a decree by the learned Munsiff but, that was reversed by learned Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta on appeal at the instance of respondent Nos.1 and 2. That judgment and decree are under challenge in this Second Appeal urging following as substantial questions of law:

i. Whether first appellate court was right in discarding the evidence of appellant as to possession based on Ext.A3, delivery kaichit especially when the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.1 and 2 were parties to the said document?

ii. Whether first appellate court erred in finding that delivery as per Ext.A3 is not really ignoring presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act (for short, “the Act”)?

iii. Whether first appellate court was right in setting aside the decree of the trial court on the finding that appellant is in possession of item No.I of the plaint schedule?

3. Item No.I of plaint schedu