JUDGMENT

*************

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.35 of 2004, dated 17.01.2006, on the file of First Additional Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.99 of 2001, dated 27.12.2003, on the file of Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

2.The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit is for demarcation of the north-western and south-western boundaries of the plaint schedule property and for fixation of boundary stones. The plaintiff has also sought for a decree of injunction restraining the defendants and their men from putting up any fence within the plaint schedule property by encroaching a portion of the same. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent/first defendant filed an appeal and the same was allowed by setting aside the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come by way of this Second Appeal.

3.According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property with an extent of 6.250 cents in R.S.No.111/2B in Kurunthencode village, Kalkulam Taluk belong to the plaintiff absolutely under four sale deeds, dated 29.5.1974, 3.10.1996. 17.9.1998 and 17.9.1998.The defendants are residing on the western side of the plaint schedule property and they have no manner or right over the suit property. It was further claimed by the plaibntiff that there was no boundary stones on the north-western and south-western property dividing the properties of the plaintiff and defendants and taking advantage of the same, the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and put up fence encroaching upon a portion of the suit property.Therefore, the present suit was filed.

4.The suit was resisted by the defendants by contending that the plaintiff’s father Krishnan Nadar purchased only 4.125 cents of land in old S.No.4424-A of the suit village under a registered sale deed, dated 2.8.1952 and the plainiff was entitled to only the extent purchased by his father and he cannot claim more than what was purchased by his father. It was further claimed by the defendants that there was a pathway in the plaint schedule property with a width of 10 feet from north main street to south street and Brammasakthi Amman Temple.The pathway has been enjoyed by the defendants for more than 50 years. The defendants also claimed that the first defendant and his brothers has got 11 ¼ cent in suit survey number. Thus disputing the total extent claimed by the plaintiff in the suit survey number, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

5.Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and nine documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and one Rajendran was examined as D.W.2 and on behalf of the defendants, two documents were marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2..

6.The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the claim made by the plaintiff that there was no demarcation of boundary line in between the properties of the plaintiff and defendants was not disputed by the defendants and hence, granted the decree as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.35 of 2004, on the file of First Additional Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The First Appellate Court, on reappreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the plainiff has got title only in respect of 4 ½ cents in suit survey number and hence, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the same, the plainiff is before this Court.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the documents filed by the defendants Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and also from the oral evidence, the defendants admitted that the plaintiff’s father has got 5.625 cents of land in suit survey number and hence, the conclusion reached by the First Appel