The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the second appeal.
2. The suit was one for declaration of title, putting up boundaries and for injunction. Alternatively, a prayer for recovery of possession was also sought. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 1 and 2 who are having properties on the east of the plaint schedule property are attempting to trespass into the plaint schedule property. The defendants disputed the identity of the plaint schedule property. Though there were series of commissions, the trial court found that the plaintiff S.A. No.681 of 1999 : 2 : has failed to establish the identity of the suit property. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Though the plaintiff took up the matter in appeal, the appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the said concurrent decisions of the courts below.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. In a case of this nature, it was obligatory for the plaintiff to establish the identity of the suit property. Two courts have concurrently found that the plaintiff has not established the identity of the suit property. The findings rendered by the courts below on the issue relating to the identity of the suit property being purely on a question of fact, the same cannot be interfered in a proceedings under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second appeal, in the S.A. No.681 of 1999 : 3 : circumstances, is devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE SKS