Dated this the 16th day of December 2019

The plaintiff came up with this appeal aggrieved

by the decree and judgment of the First Appellate

Court dismissing a suit for fixation of boundary and

recovery of possession. The suit was originally

decreed by the trial Court, against which an appeal

was preferred before the First appellate Court. The

first appellate Court dismissed the suit based on the

admission made by the plaintiff regarding the

construction of a compound wall on the disputed place

in the year 1984 immediately after the purchase of

the said property under Ext.A3.

2.

The decree granted by the trial Court was

reversed by the first appellate Court, mainly on the

reason that the plaintiff is estopped from

maintaining a suit for recovery of possession as they

have constructed a compound wall in the disputed

place in the year 1984. Hence they are barred by

doctrine of acquiescence. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the appellant that no pleading

was raised in the written statement with respect to

any acquiescence or estoppal.

3.

It is true that there is no pleading anywhere

in the written statement with respect to the doctrine