SABARIARADIMAI Vs. MARIA RETNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE substantial questions of law raised in the second appeal are: "1. Whether the decree and judgment of the Court below are to be set aside for non-consideration of document produced on the side of the appellant viz. , Ex. B. 19 etc. and non-consideration of the commissioner's evidence and report, and plan marked in the present suit and for relying upon the Commissioner's report rendered in a different suit which do not have a binding effect on the defendant-appellant" 2. When there is a boundary dispute, whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit on the question of title by adverse possession between two adjacent owners" 3.Whether the judgment of the appellate Court is vitiated as it failed to do its duty of final fact finding authority after considering the evidence produced and hence it is perverse""

(2.) THE first defendant in O. S. No. 513 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant in the second appeal. THE first respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of his title, possession and for injunction. Her case was as follows: She was the owner of 11 cents in R. S. No. 476/23, corresponding to old S. No. 6466 at Lakshmipuram Village . She got it under the title deed, dt. 3. 4. 1121 M. E. executed by her father. THE property was surrounded by well defined old kasalas more than 70 years of age. THE property had been in her possession and enjoyment. THE defendants were the adjacent owners of S. No. 476/17 which was on the western side of the plaint schedule property. THEy had no manner of right or possession over the plaint schedule property. THE plaint schedule property was more than 4 lower in level than the property of the defendants. As the defendants attempted to encroach upon the suit property, and put up a new boundary, the suit was necessitated. THE disputed property had been in the possession of the plaintiff and her ancestors for a long time. Her possession was of right, open and hostile to all others and so even if the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest had any right in the remote past, it had been long lost by adverse possession of the plaintiff from 3. 4. 1121 M. E.

(3.) THE first defendant filed appeal in A. S. No. 101 of 1984. THE learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, by judgment and decree, dated. 28. 2. 1999 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the trial court. It is, as against this, the present second appeal has been filed.