These second appeals arise from O.S.No.132 of 1984 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur. O.S.No.132 of 1984 was though decreed as prayed for by the trial court, the appellate court modified the decree of the trial court partly in favour of the defendants. S.A.No.58 of 1999 is by the plaintiff challenging the modification of the decree made by the appellate court and S.A.No.154 of 2000 is by the defendants challenging the decree passed by the trial court as modified by the appellate court.
2. The relevant facts are the following: The plaintiff purchased one shop room in a line building S.A.Nos. 58 of 1999 & 154 of 2000 2 abutting a public road on its north in terms of Ext.A1 sale deed. The shop room purchased by the plaintiff is the room on the eastern end of the building. The remaining rooms in the building are on the west of the shop room purchased by the plaintiff. The building consisting of the room purchased by the plaintiff is one constructed covering almost the entire property owned by the vendor of the plaintiff. There is a strip of land on the eastern side of the building as also on its southern side and there existed a compound wall beyond the said strips of land. According to the plaintiff, the strip of land on the eastern side of the building as also the strip of land on the southern side of the building up to the western boundary of the shop room purchased by the plaintiff are part of the property covered by Ext.A1 sale deed. The shop room purchased by the plaintiff and the strips of land on its east and south together are shown by the plaintiff as the plaint schedule property. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants who hold property on the further east and S.A.Nos. 58 of 1999 & 154 of 2000 3 south of the compound wall are asserting right over the strips of land referred to above and have demolished a portion of the compound wall on the east of the shop room for annexing the aforesaid strips of land to their property. On the said allegations, the plaintiff sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the demolished portion of the compound wall on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The trial court found that the plaintiff has established possession over the property described as the plaint schedule property and decreed the suit as prayed for. The appellate court, however, vacated the decree of mandatory injunction holding that the plaintiff has not established possession over the compound walls. Hence these second appeals.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. As noted, the suit is one for injunction. In S.A.Nos. 58 of 1999 & 154 of 2000 4 a suit for injunction, the only issue arising for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff has established possession over the suit property. The question relating to possession is a pure question of fact. The appellate court found that the plaintiff has not established possession over the compound walls. It is on that basis that the appellate court vacated the decree of mandatory injunction granted by the trial court. The appellants have not demonstrated that the findings rendered by the courts below as regards possession are perverse. As such, this could cannot interfere with the said findings in exercise of the power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is seen that the courts below were attempting to resolve the boundary disputes between the parties in the suit. It is necessary in this connection to observe that this being a suit for injunction, it was unnecessary for the courts below to deal with the boundary dispute. The second appeals, in the circumstances, are liable to be dismissed and I do so. It S.A.Nos. 58 of 1999 & 154 of 2000 5 is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the parties from instituting appropriate proceedings, if so advised, for fixation of the boundaries of their respective properties.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE SKS