Kerala High Court
Rugmini vs Joseph,(Died) on 20 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
RSA NO. 700 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN AS 20/2002 OF SUB COURT, PALA
OS NO.15/1998 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA
-----
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 RUGMINI,W/O.KUTTAPPAN,
KALLEPPALLIL HOUSE, MELAMPARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE FROM
MANJATTU HOUSE, KAYYOOR KARA,BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE.
2 KUTTAPPAN,S/O.GOPALAN,
KALLEPPALLIL HOUSE, MELAMPARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE FROM
MANJATTU HOUSE, KAYYOOR KARA,BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 JOSEPH,S/O.JOSEPH, [DIED]
KOTTARATHIL,MELAMPARAKARA,THALAPPALAM VILLAGE.
*1 2 ROSAMMA,W/O.JOSEPH,
KOTTARATHIL, MELAMPARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE.
*1 [SECOND RERSPONDENT IS RECORDED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED
FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 20/11/2019 IN I.A.NO. 02/2019]
*2 ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 & 4
ADDL. R3 RONY,
S/O.JOSEPH,KOTTARATHIL,
MELAMPARA KARA,THALAPPALAM VILLAGE-686 578.
RSA NO. 700 OF 2010 -2-
ADDL. R4 ROSMY,
D/O.JOSEPH,KOTTARATHIL,
MELAMPARA KARA,THALAPPALAM VILLAGE-686 578.
*2[ADDITIONAL RERSPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 20/11/2019 IN I.A.NO.
01/2019 IN RSA NO. 700/2010]
BY ADVS.
SMT.GEETHA P.MENON
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
SMT.MEERA P.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2022,
ALONG WITH RSA.749/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
RSA NO.749 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN AS 21/2002 OF SUB COURT, PALA
OS 14/2002 OF MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, ERATTUPETTA
-----
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 RUGMINI,
W/O. KUTTAPPAN, KALLEPPALLIL HOUSE, MELAMPARA KARA,
THALAPPALAM VILLAGE FROM MANJATTU HOUSE,KAYYOOR KARA,
BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE.
2 KUTTAPPAN,
S/O. GOPALAN, KALLEPPALLIL HOUSE, MELAMPARA KARA, THALAPPALAM
VILLAGE FROM MANJATTU HOUSE, KAYYOOR KARA,
BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM
SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 JOSEPH, [DIED; LRs IMPLEADED]
S/O. JOSEPH, KOTTARATHIL, MELAMPARA KARA,
THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, PIN-686 594.
2 ROSAMMA,
W/O. JOSEPH, KOTTARATHIL, MELAMPARA KARA,
THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, PIN-686 594.
*1 ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 & 4
ADDL. R3 RONY,
S/O. JOSEPH, KOTTARATHIL, MELAMPARA KARA, THALAPPALAM
VILLAGE.
RSA NO. 749 OF 2016 -2-
ADDL. R4 ROSMY,
D/O. JOSEPH, KOTTARATHIL, MELAMPARA KARA, THALAPPALAM
VILLAGE.
*1 [ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AND RESPONDENT NO.2 IS
RECORDED AS THE LRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED
20.11.2019 IN IA.142/2019.]
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SMT.MEERA P.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2022,
ALONG WITH RSA.700/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.S.A. Nos.700 of 2010 & 749 of 2016
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2022
J U D G M E N T
RSA No.700 of 2010 arises from OS 15/1998. It was
filed by the appellants as the plaintiffs. That suit was
originally one for fixation of boundary, and was later
amended for declaration of title and recovery of
possession. Therein, the respondents raised a counter
claim for a declaration that the existing boundary is
the boundary of the disputed property. RSA No.749 of
2016 arises from OS 14/1998. It is a cross suit filed by
the respondents as plaintiffs, for prohibitory
injunction against trespass and from destroying the
boundary. The Courts held against the appellants.
2. The courts considered OS 15/1998 to be the
leading case. For the sake of convenience, herein also
the same course is followed, and the parties and the
plaint schedule are referred to as per the status and
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
description in OS 15/1998 (plaintiffs-appellants and
defendants-respondents).
3. An extent of 2 acres of property, including the
plaint schedule property, belonged to the first
plaintiff as per Ext.A1 Sale Deed of the year 1989. It
was executed in his favour by one Joseph. The second
plaintiff is the husband of the first plaintiff. On the
eastern side of the property of the plaintiffs is the
property of the defendants. The plaintiffs allege,
trespass by the defendants into the south-eastern
portion of the 2 acres. The alleged trespassed portion
is the plaint schedule 42 cents.
4. The defendants denied the allegation of
trespass. They contended that, the plaint schedule
property forms part of the larger extent of 5 acres of
property belonging to them, as described in counter
claim schedules 1 to 4 and also in the plaint schedule
in OS 14/1998. They claim to have obtained title to the
said property under Exts.B9 to B11 Sale Deeds. According
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
to them, the plaint schedule property lies well
demarcated from the property of the plaintiffs by barbed
wire-fencing. They allege that the plaintiffs are
attempting to destroy the boundary. They raised a
counter claim for a declaration that, the existing
boundary is the boundary separating the properties of
the plaintiffs and defendants. They also filed a suit OS
14/1998 for prohibitory injunction against trespass.
5. The Courts, relying upon the identification of
the properties done by the Commissioner in Ext.C6 plan,
and also taking note of the existing ridge and barbed
wire-fencing separating the plaint schedule property
from the property of the plaintiffs, dismissed the suit
filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, and decreed the
counter claim and the suit filed by the respondents.
6. Heard Sri.M.Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for
the respondents on the following substantial questions
of law:-
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
(i) On facts of the case, were the courts justified in
having decided the title over the plaint schedule property on
the basis of survey records, including re-survey and old
survey?
(ii) Having found that there is apparent discrepancy in
the description of the plaint schedule property by boundaries
and survey numbers, were the courts right in having fixed the
identity and title based on re-survey, especially when the re-
survey was done pending the present suit on title ?
7. On the eastern side of the admitted property of
the plaintiffs is the admitted property of the
defendants. Taking it to be that the properties of the
plaintiffs and the defendants are almost rectangular
plots, the disputed property is on the south-eastern
side of the property of the plaintiffs. In other words,
the disputed property-plaint schedule lies protruded
towards the west and into the admitted property of the
plaintiffs. The lie of the properties is evident from
Exts.C1 and C4 Commissioner's reports with rough
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
sketches attached thereto. These reports are by the very
same Commissioner and are similar. The reports indicate
that, on the western and northern sides of the disputed
property-plaint schedule, there exists a ridge having a
height varying from 1.5 feet to 4.5 feet, with a barbed
wire-fencing over it. It is reported that the ridge has
an approximate age of 4 years. The barbed wire-fencing
was reported to have an approximate age of 3 years. So
also, in Ext.C1 report it is stated that, the colour of
the granite stones over which the barbed fencing is
erected, has not faded. It indicates that such erection
of fence is not very old. In Ext.C1, the commissioner
further reported that the barbed wire on the fence was
found rusted at places near to the granite pillars and
at other places it has not rusted. The defendants'
document of title viz. Exts.B9 to B11 are of the year
1990 and the suit filed by the appellants is of the year
1994 (OS 178/1994 later re-numbered as OS 15/1998). The
above probabilises that, the ridges and the fence on the
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
western and northern sides of the disputed property
might have been erected after the conveyances in favour
of the defendants.
8. Having understood the lie of the properties, I
proceed to consider the description of the plaintiff's
property in their document of title viz. Ext.A1. The
prior title deed of Ext.A1 is Ext.B16. It is a deed of
settlement of the year 1975, executed by the original
owner Thomman in favour of his son Joseph. It relates to
an extent of 2 acres and 30 cents lying east-west, on
the northern portion of a larger extent of 4 acres and
30 cents. It is from out of the said 2 acres and 30
cents that Joseph conveyed 2 acres to the plaintiffs
under Ext.A1. It is to be noticed that, the basic title
to the admitted properties of the defendants also flow
from Thomman, the executant of Ext.B16. As per the
descriptions in Exts.B16 and A1 conveyances, the
property of the plaintiffs is to be situated on the
northern portion of the 4 acres and 30 cents. If that be
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
so, the subsequent conveyances in favour of the
defendants could only be to the south of the said 2
acres and 30 cents. However, admittedly, the possession
of the properties are, that on the western side by the
plaintiffs and on the eastern side by the defendants.
This is further fortified by the description of the
western boundary in the title deeds of the defendants,
namely Exts.B9 to B11 as, 'the plaintiffs' property'.
Therefore, the lie and location of the properties as
mentioned in Exts.A1 and B16 does not tally with the
actual enjoyment by the parties. It is also to be
noticed that, the boundary descriptions in Ext.A1 does
not tally with the boundary descriptions in Ext.B16.
Therefore, both the location and the boundaries as
mentioned in Ext.A1 does not tally with the actual
enjoyment of the properties.
9. Exts.C3 and C6 are two commissioner's plans
obtained in the suit, to identify the plaint schedule
property. A perusal of Ext.C6 seems to indicate that,
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
the property in the possession of the plaintiffs and
conveyed under Ext.A1, is situated in old survey numbers
570/1 and 570/2. However, going by the description in
Exts.A1 and B16, the prior deed, the property is
situated in survey No.570/1 alone. Thus, it could be
noticed that, apart from the location and boundaries,
the survey number mentioned in the title deed also does
not seem to tally.
10. Ext.C3 identifies the property of the
plaintiffs to be situated in Old Survey 570/1. That is
in tune with the survey number mentioned in Ext.A1. The
plaint schedule property, which is the alleged
trespassed portion, is specifically shown in the plan as
the south-eastern portion of the plaintiff's property.
However, in Ext.C6 plan, which is essentially based on
re-survey, the plaintiff's property is shown as situated
in Old Survey 570/1 and 570/2. As noticed above, it is
at variance from that mentioned in Exts.A1 and B16.
Further, going by the description of the property in
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
Exts.A1 and B16 (as northern 2.30 acres), the property
of the plaintiffs should be plots 1 and 4 mentioned in
Ext.C6 which are situated in old survey 570/2. However,
admittedly that is not the manner of enjoyment of the
properties. So also, while Ext.C3 plan identifies the
entire property of the plaintiffs as situated in Survey
570/1, in Ext.C6, the property is identified as situated
in Old Survey 570/1 and 570/2, or in survey No.570/2
alone as per the descriptions in Exts.A1 and B16. The
above is mentioned to observe that, the description of
the property by survey numbers could not, in the case at
hand, be the basis for determination of identity and
title.
11. There is yet another reason to observe as
above. Admittedly the re-survey proceedings were
completed pending the suits. Though the respondents
would place much reliance on the joint applications
given by the parties for the finalisation of re-survey,
all these are admittedly pending the suit and pending
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
the dispute on title. Exts.A3 and A5 are the objections
given by the plaintiffs to the re-survey. Ext.X3 true
extract of the "Thandaper Account" of the plaintiffs
shows that, corrections were made to the extent of the
property held by the plaintiffs, by reducing the extent
to 66.30 Ares from 81 Ares (2 acres). The corrections
were made pending the suit, in the year 1998, and based
on the re-survey. Similar is Ext.X5 "Thandapper Account"
of the defendants. Thereunder the extent has been
increased. Such variation pending the suit, is also
evident from Ext.X8 "Thandaper Account" in the name of
Joseph, the executant of Ext.A1. As noticed supra, the
plaintiffs had objected to the re-survey; so also, the
re-survey was done pending consideration of the suit on
title by the Civil Court. Exts.X11 and X12, "Form-A
]«b-am-ä IW¡v" mentions the changes to be
provisional. The above are sufficient to hold that, the
re-survey could not be the basis for a decision on the
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
dispute on title between the parties.
12. Now coming to the physical boundary on the
spot, which separates the properties of the plaintiffs
and defendants, it is the definite case of the second
plaintiff as PW1 that, on the eastern side of Ext.A1
property, there is an old "kayyala" of 5 feet height. He
asserts that it is the boundary separating the
plaintiffs' property with the property of the
defendants. He has further deposed that he purchased the
property on being convinced of the boundary and that it
includes the land presently enclosed by the defendants
with barbed wire-fencing. Ext.C3 plan indicates the
existence of the "IÃv I¿me" throughout the PQ line
shown therein, as the boundary line separating the
properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Going
by Ext.C3 plan, the disputed property is part of the
plaintiffs' property. As noticed earlier, Exts.C1 and C4
Commissioner's Reports make mention of the existence of
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
ridges of 4 years old approximately, on the western and
northern sides of the disputed property. The details
regarding the physical boundary seen on the northern and
western sides of the plaint schedule have been adverted
to in the earlier part of this judgment. Even as per the
defendants' case, from the north-eastern corner of the
disputed property towards north till its northern
boundary there exists an old "Kayyala" of 5 feet height.
The said "kayyala" is indicated in Ext.C3 plan from the
point 'P' towards south. A perusal of Ext.C3 plan
reveals that the said old " IÃv I¿me" continues/
proceeds further towards the south from the north-
eastern corner of the plaint schedule-disputed property
also, and continues up to the southern boundary, that
is, up to the point 'Q'. Therefore, the " IÃv I¿me"
made mention of even by the defendants, which is a very
old one, exists throughout the 'PQ' line. Exts.C1 and C4
reports mention the age of the said "kayyala" as more
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
than 30 years. These are the features of the physical
boundaries on the spot.
13. Now coming to the issue of extent, even the
defendants does not dispute that the possession of the
property by the plaintiffs is not as per the description
in Ext.A1. There is a pointed suggestion to PW1 which
reads as under :-
"\n-§Ä-¡v B-[m-c-¯n ]-d-bp-¶ h-i¯Ã
In-«n-bn-cn-¡p-¶-sX¶pw ssI-h-i-¯n-cn-¡p-¶-
sX¶pw ]-d-bp¶p. (Q). F-\n¡-Xv A-dn-bnÃ."
The conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 and
its basic deed Ext.B16, are prior in point of time to
Ext.B9 executed by the original owner of the entire
properties viz. Thomman, and also the prior deeds
mentioned in Exts.B10 and B11. As noticed supra, this is
a case where the boundary description, the description
of the location of the property and the survey numbers
of the properties conveyed under Ext.A1, does not tally
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
with the actual possession and enjoyment. Under Ext.B16
the original owner conveyed 2.30 Acres to his son Joseph
from a larger extent of property. From the 2.30 Acres
Joseph conveyed 2 Acres to the plaintiff under Ext.A1.
It is subsequent thereto that the other conveyances
Exts.B9 to B11 in favour of the defendants have taken
place. Under Ext.A1, the extent of property conveyed is
2 Acres. Ext.X1 is the "Thandaper account" of the
plaintiffs' property. It shows the extent of property of
the plaintiffs as 2 Acres. Ext.X2, the details regarding
payment of tax, shows the remittance of tax for the
property for the period from 1989 i.e. prior to Ext.A1.
Ext.X3, the extract of the "thandapper account" shows
that there has been a correction and consequential
reduction in the extent from 81 Ares (2 Acres to 66.30
Ares in the year 1998 i.e. pending the suit).
14. Ext.A2 series tax receipts evidences payment of
tax for an extent of 2 Acres by the plaintiffs. Ext.A4
is a communication dated 27.05.1992 addressed to the
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
plaintiffs from the Rubber Board. Therein also the
extent of property is mentioned as 0.81 hectares
corresponding to 2 Acres. Under Ext.A1, the plaintiff
obtained title and possession over the 2 Acres of
property and he was possessing and enjoying the same as
is evident from the above. It is from out of the
remaining property that the subsequent conveyances
Exts.B9 to B11 have taken place. So in the circumstances
as above, the extent mentioned in the document Ext.A1
has significance than the other variables like survey
number, location, which are found supra to be erroneous.
15. The extent of property on the western side of
the 'PQ' line in Ext.C3, through which the very old " IÃv
I¿me" exists, is 2 Acres and 4 cents. It includes the
disputed plaint schedule property. If the plaint
schedule property is not added to the plaintiffs'
portions, the extent of the plaintiffs' property will be
reduced by almost half acre. Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
learned counsel for the respondents would argue that in
Ext.C6 plan it is shown that an extent of approximately
50 cents in Sy. No.570/1, on the west of the appellants
property, is in the possession of strangers and that
would be the extent lost by the appellants. The said
argument based on Ext.C6 is evidently unsustainable
because, what the commissioner has shown is, the
property in Sy. No.570/1 which is in the possession of
strangers. There is further property in the same survey
number just to its south which is not in possession of
the plaintiffs. Therefore, there is no reason to assume
that the blue and yellow shaded plots in Sy. No.570/1 is
the property of the plaintiffs which is reduced into
possession by strangers. And again, the suggestion in
Ext.C6 is based on survey numbers.
16. In Ext.C3 plan, the defendants' property which
is located on the eastern side of the 'PQ' line is found
to be 5 Acres and 67 cents. Even going by the
defendants' case, the extent of property belonging to
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
them which is described in the counter claim schedule
items 1 to 4 under Exts.B9 to B11, is only 5 Acres.
Therefore, even excluding the disputed plaint schedule
property, the defendants are in possession of much in
excess of the property which they obtained under Exts.B9
to B11. Of course, the mere fact that the defendants may
have excess extent in their possession will not vest any
rights to the plaintiffs. Any how, in the case at hand,
it appears that description by extent is the most
reliable identification factor and the plaintiffs having
obtained conveyance earlier in point of time, they would
be entitled to 2 Acres conveyed under Ext.A1.
17. If 'PQ' line in Ext.C3 is taken as the boundary
line separating the properties of the plaintiffs and the
defendants, the extent tallies and it is in tune with
the physical boundary namely, the "kayyala" which is
more than 30 years old.
18. This Court in Savithri Ammal v. Padmavathi Amma (1990
(1) KLT 187), held that, "In cases where there is a difference in the
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
extent and the boundary covered by a document, one or the other which is
clearer and more specific has to be preferred. In some cases it may be the
boundary. In some other cases it may be the extent and in yet other cases it
may be the side measurements. There is no invariable rule in this regard."
Thus, when there are conflicting descriptions regarding
the property, the one which is least susceptible to be
erroneous will prevail. Law in the said regard is well
settled. (See Parameswaran Pillai v. Gowrikutty Amma 1984 KLT SN
111; P. Velu v. Padmavathy Amma, ILR 1984 (1) Kerala 30; Krishnan
Kartha v. Pariathu, 1955 KLT 647; Kumaran v. Ulahannan Mathai, 1957
KLT 42; Krishnamurthi Iyer v. Janaki Amma, ILR 1957 Ker. 835). In
the case at hand, as noticed in the foregoing
paragraphs, the description of the property in Ext.A1
with reference to boundaries, survey numbers, location
etc. are found to be erroneous. The description by
extent is found to have precedence and prevalence over
the other facts. The description by extent though rarely
found to prevail, is, in the instant case, found to be
least susceptible to error. Accordingly, the description
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
by extent is accepted as the correct description of the
property covered under Ext.A1.
19. A reading of the judgments of the trial court
as well as the first appellate court reveals that both
the courts have entered a finding on the question of
title, based on survey and survey numbers especially the
re-survey. In Kannan v. Kannan (1964 KLT 228), this Court
has categorically held that the issue of title is to be
determined, not with reference to survey boundaries. The
orders regarding mutation based on a re-survey,
especially being one which has happened pending the
litigation, cannot vest any title with the defendants
nor extinguish the title of the plaintiffs. Though the
above requires no precedents to be cited, since it is
too well established, still for the sake of convenience
I would refer to Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import &
Export Co. (2019) 3 SCC 191, paragraph 6 of which reads
thus :-
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
"This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land
in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title
over such land nor has it any presumptive value on the title. It
only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to
pay the land revenue in question (See Sawarni v. Inder Kaur,
Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh and Narasamma v. State of
Karnataka)."
20. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the
reasonings given by the court to hold against the
plaintiffs. I find that the plaintiffs have established
title over the plaint schedule property. Substantial
questions of law nos.(i) and (ii) are answered accordingly.
21. Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeals are
allowed. The decree and judgment of the courts below are
set aside. The suits are decreed as follows :-
(a) The title of the plaintiffs in OS 15/1998 over
the plaint schedule property is declared. They are
permitted to recover possession of the same from the
defendants. The plaint schedule is specifically shown in
R.S.A. Nos.700/2010 & 749/2016
yellow and blue shades in Ext.C3 plan.
(b) The 'PQ' line is Ext.C3 plan is declared as the
boundary separating the plaintiffs property from that of
the defendants.
(c) Ext.C3 plan will form part of the decree.
(d) The suit O.S.14 of 1998 and the counter claim
in O.S. 15 of 1998 are dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
