JUDGMENT

In this Second Appeal, the question that is thrown up for consideration is when there is conflict between the extent and the boundary, which is to prevail.

2. O.S. 161 of 1992 before the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi was a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff based his claim on Ext.A1 partition deed dated 8.8.1966. According to the plaintiff, he obtained item No.1 of A6 schedule in Ext.A1 partition deed. There is way on the east of entire Kilarthu paramba property and the plaint schedule property, which was being used to take cattles to paddy fields lying nearby. The plaintiff would claim that while the partition was effected, the way was not kept as open to all but was allotted to his share. The predecessor in interest of the defendants, who was a party to Ext.A1 partition deed was allotted 'punchanilam' lying on the east of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiff, there is no definite boundary on the eastern side and it has become necessary to put up a boundary to protect the property from trespass. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants resisted the suit. They pointed out that there is an old etha on the eastern side of the plaint