R.S.A. No. 700 of 2010 and R.S.A. No. 749 of 2016 (Rugmini and Kuttappan v. Joseph and Rosamma and others)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **TUESDAY, THE 20[TH] 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-MAGISTRATE'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 SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:** ***[1 ]** 1 JOSEPH,S/O.JOSEPH, **[DIED]** KOTTARATHIL,MELAMPARAKARA,THALAPPALAM VILLAGE. 2 ROSAMMA,W/O.JOSEPH, KOTTARATHIL, MELAMPARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE. ## ***[1] [SECOND RESPONDENT 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 RESPONDENTS 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 20[TH] 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 14/1998 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE'S COURT, 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 20[th] 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** **==> picture [34 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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** -: 3 :- 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** -: 4 :- _(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 resurvey 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** **==> picture [34 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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** -: 6 :- 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** -: 7 :- 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** -: 8 :- 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** -: 9 :- 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** -: 10 :- 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** -: 11 :- 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** -: 12 :- 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 northeastern 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** **==> picture [40 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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 ¶-sX¶ ¶- In-«n-bn-cn-¡p- pw ssI-h-i-¯n-cn-¡psX¶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** -: 14 :- 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** -: 15 :- 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** -: 16 :- 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** -: 17 :- 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** -: 18 :- _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** **==> picture [40 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 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** -: 20 :- _“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** -: 21 :- 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