JUDGMENT : M.A.Abdul Hakhim, J. 1. Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was for declaration and mandatory & prohibitory injunctions, which were concurrently dismissed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 2. The essential facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal alone are stated. The father of the plaintiff had plaint A schedule property of 3.676 cents of land consisting of a building having three shop rooms. The father of the plaintiff executed Ext.A1 Settlement Deed of the year 1987 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 1.200 cents of land including shop room therein, forming the western portion of the plaint A schedule property. The father of the plaintiff sold 1.210 cents of land and the shop room therein situated on the immediate eastern side of Ext.A1 property to the defendants 1 & 2 as per Ext.B1 sale deed of the year 1989. The balance land on the eastern side of Ext.B1 property was settled in favour of the brother of the plaintiff as per Ext.B2 deed of the year 1999. National Highway passes through the northern side of Exts.A1 and B1 properties. The northern portion of Ext.A1 and B1 properties were acquired for widening the National Highway. As per plaint allegations, after acquisition of part of the property by the Government, the original building in plaint A schedule property was demolished by the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 and they constructed a concrete building having shop rooms in its place and that the plaintiff is allotted the western shop room with 731 Sq.Links and the defendants 1 and 2 are allotted shop room with 617 Sq.Links on the immediate east. The balance land covered by Ext.A1 after acquisition having the said 731 Sq.Links and the building therein is included in B schedule. The balance land covered by Ext.B1 property after acquisition having the said 617 Sq.Links and the building therein is included in plaint C schedule. As per the plaint allegations, the defendants 1 & 2 encroached into the north eastern corner portion of plaint B schedule room having a width of one feet and a length of ten feet constructing a new wall pushing the existing boundary towards western side after demolishing the existing common wall. The said portion having a width of 1 feet and length of 10 feet is included in plaint D schedule. The said portion having a width of 1 feet and length of 10 feet is included in plaint D schedule. The alleged newly constructed wall is included in plaint E schedule. As per the plaint allegations, the 3 rd defendant, who is the tenant of the plaintiff, supported the illegal action on the part of the defendants 1 and 2 and he demolished the sunshade having a length of 3 ‰ feet and width of (cid:190) feet on the eastern side of plaint B schedule shop room. 3. The plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration of his title over plaint B schedule building; to recover possession of plaint D schedule from the 1 st & 2 nd defendants; to issue a mandatory injunction to demolish plaint D schedule wall, to construct a common wall on the centre of plaint B and C schedule rooms and to construct the demolished portion of F schedule sunshade; and to issue consequential injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing into plaint B schedule property and from taking any steps to reduce the area of plaint B schedule room and committing any waste therein. 4. The defendants contested the suit contending that the defendants 1 & 2 did not encroach into any portion of the shop room belonging to the plaintiff; that the original building was not demolished and reconstructed by the parties after acquisition; that only roof of the building was replaced; that the wall separating Ext.A1 property and Ext.B1 property was not demolished by the defendants; that the wall which existed originally has been still remaining in the property separating the properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2; that the said wall is not in a straight line as claimed by the plaintiff and that the said wall has projection towards western side on the north western corner of the property of the defendants 1 & 2. 5. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor who prepared Ext.C1 and C1(a) were examined as PWs 2 and 3. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. The 1 st defendant was examined as DW1 and another witness was examined as DW2. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the defendants. The Commission Report and Plan were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). 6. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. The 1 st defendant was examined as DW1 and another witness was examined as DW2. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the defendants. The Commission Report and Plan were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). 6. The Trial Court dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff could not prove that the defendants demolished the common wall separating the properties of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2 and encroached plaint D schedule property as alleged and that the plaintiff could not produce convincing evidence to prove that plaint F portion of sunshade is demolished by the 3 rd defendant. 7. The plaintiff filed appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court with regard to the demolition of wall and encroachment. Nevertheless, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part declaring that the plaintiff has got title over the ‘B C D P O N B’ plot which is identified by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext. C1(a) Plan as belonging to the plaintiff and fixing the eastern boundary of plaint B schedule as ‘NOPD’ showed in Ext.C1(a) plan. The defendants did not have any grievance with respect to the said declaration and fixation of boundary as Plaint D schedule portion, which is alleged to have been trespassed by the defendants 1 and 2, was found to be the property of the defendants 1 and 2 obtained as per Ext.B1. 8. This Court admitted the above Regular Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff on the following substantial question of law: ( ) Are the courts below justified in ignoring the recitals in Ext.A1 regarding the extent and boundaries (which is the document first in point of time executed by the father) and giving priority to Ext. B1, which is after Ext.A1? ( ) Did not the Courts below go wrong in interpreting and construing the extent and boundaries of the properties? ( ) Was the lower appellate court justified in not accepting the Commissioner’s report in entirety? 9. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. G.S.Reghunath and the learned counsel for the respondents, Sri.Sidharth A Menon. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court acted illegally in not decreeing the suit as prayed for. 9. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. G.S.Reghunath and the learned counsel for the respondents, Sri.Sidharth A Menon. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court acted illegally in not decreeing the suit as prayed for. Plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 derived their properties from a common ancestor, namely, the father of the plaintiff. Plaintiff derived his property having an extent of 1.200 cents as per Ext.A1 Settlement deed of the year 1987. The said property covered by Ext.A1 is situated on the western extremity of the total extent of 3.676 cents of land belonged to the father of the plaintiff. It is only after settling the said 1.200 cents of land to the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff sold 1.210 cents of land to the defendants 1 & 2 as per Ext.B1 in the year 1989. In such case, the defendants 1 and 2 cannot claim any part of the property covered by Ext.A1 settlement deed, which is anterior in time. The learned counsel invited my attention to the recitals in Exts.A1 and B1 documents and contended that going by the recitals in those documents the wall separating the properties is in a straight line and it is not projected towards western side as found by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext. C1 (a) plan. The said projection of the common wall towards western side would only prove that the said projected wall is constructed by the defendants after demolishing the existing straight wall in order to encroach into plaint D schedule property. The demolition of the F schedule sunshade is specifically reported by the Advocate Commissioner which would probablise the case of the plaintiff. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the extent of properties which are shown in plaint B and C schedules are not correct. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2 are not having the extent shown in plain B and C schedules. The Advocate Commissioner has correctly identified the plaint B schedule property belonging to the plaintiff has 592 links and plaint C schedule property belonging to the defendants 1 & 2 has 592 links. The projected portion included in plaint D schedule is shown as 21 square links. The Advocate Commissioner has correctly identified the plaint B schedule property belonging to the plaintiff has 592 links and plaint C schedule property belonging to the defendants 1 & 2 has 592 links. The projected portion included in plaint D schedule is shown as 21 square links. Ext.B1 would clearly shows that the said projected portion is a part of the property of the defendants 1 and 2. In Ext.A1, there are no side measurements, whereas in Ext.B1, there are side measurements and plan. In Ext.B1, the projection of the north western portion towards west is clearly shown. There occurred a mistake while referring the boundaries in the Plan namely, eastern side is wrongly noted as western side and western side is wrongly noted as eastern side. There is no evidence before the Court to prove that the existing common wall was demolished by the defendants for constructing a new compound wall separating the properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate court correctly appreciated the pleadings and the evidence. The First Appellate Court granted decree in favour of the plaintiff with respect to his property covered by Ext.A1 document as found by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext. C1(a) Plan fixing the boundary with respect to the same and the respondents do not have any objection with respect to the said decree. 12. I have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, the property of the plaintiff and the property of the defendants 1 & 2 are part of plaint A schedule property having an extent of 3.676 cents of land. The plaintiff got 1.200 cents of land forming the western portion of the said 3.676 cents extending north south as per Ext.A1. The defendants obtained 1.210 cents of land extending north south on the immediate eastern side of Ext.A1 property as per Ext.B1. Ext.A1 takes in the western shop room and Ext.B1 takes in the shop room on the immediate eastern side. The balance property situated on the further east of Ext.B1 property is given to the brother of the plaintiff as per Ext.B2. Admittedly, National Highway is situated on the northern side of these properties. Northern portions of Ext.A1 and Ext.B1 properties were acquired for widening the road. The balance property situated on the further east of Ext.B1 property is given to the brother of the plaintiff as per Ext.B2. Admittedly, National Highway is situated on the northern side of these properties. Northern portions of Ext.A1 and Ext.B1 properties were acquired for widening the road. Though plaintiff claimed that the original building situated in the total extent of land was demolished by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 after acquisition of property by the Government and constructed a new building having shop rooms in its place, the same is strongly disputed by the defendants. There is no evidence from the part of the plaintiff with respect to this allegation. Even though the plaintiff claimed that after such construction shop room having 731 Sq.Links was allotted to the plaintiff and shop room having 617 Sq.Links was allotted to the defendants 1 and 2, there is no evidence for the same. As per Ext.C1(a) Plan the plaintiff is having 592 Sq.Links. Even if the portion having 21 Sq.Links alleged to have been encroached by the defendants 1 & 2 is included in their property, the defendants 1 and 2 is having only 613 Sq. Links. It is seen that 543 square links each is acquired from both the properties. So it could not be said that both the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 derived the extent of properties included in Exts.A1 and B1 title deeds. Even though Ext.B1 title deed covers 1.210 cents of land, the same is found to be only 1.156 cents of land including the projected portion which is included in plaint D schedule. Hence the defendants 1 & 2 are not having any excess land in their possession. A Plan is appended to Ext.B1. In the said Plan, the main road is shown at the bottom corresponding to the southern side. There is a projection shown towards the eastern side. Since the main road is admittedly on the northern side, the bottom side is to be treated as the northern side. When the plan is considered, treating the bottom side as the northern side, it is clear that the projection is towards the western side. This mistake in the Plan in Ext.B1 is specifically pleaded by the defendants in their Written Statement. In Ext.A1, the side measurements are not stated, whereas in Ext.B1, side measurements are stated. When the plan is considered, treating the bottom side as the northern side, it is clear that the projection is towards the western side. This mistake in the Plan in Ext.B1 is specifically pleaded by the defendants in their Written Statement. In Ext.A1, the side measurements are not stated, whereas in Ext.B1, side measurements are stated. The plaintiff as PW1 admitted that he has no dispute regarding the measurements of the property shown in the Plan attached to Ext.B1. If the Plan appended to Ext.B1 is correctly understood, the projection of the property of the defendants 1 & 2 is towards western side at the north western portion. It perfectly tallies with Ext.C2(a) Plan. Plaint D schedule property comes within the measurements of Ext.B1 property of the defendants 1 & 2. Even though the plaintiff as PW1 admitted that a Plan was attached with Ext.A1 document and is prepared to produce the same, the same was not produced by the plaintiff. 13. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court relied on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 the Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor and non suited the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to prove that the projected wall is a new construction. Hence, I find that the case pleaded by the defendants is more probable when compared to the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court understood the title deeds of the parties in the right perspective. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court correctly interpreted and construed the extent and boundaries of the properties. Hence, I answer the substantial question of law No.(i) in the affirmative and the substantial question of law No. (ii) in the negative, both in favour of the respondents. The substantial question of law No.(iii) does not arise in the matter and no argument was advanced with respect to the same. 14. In view of the aforesaid answers to the substantial questions of law Nos.(i) & (ii), this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed without costs.