JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.480/1994 by the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally, as confirmed in A.S.No.233/2006 by the Addl. District Court-I, Kollam. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The litigation has a long chequered history. Initially, the plaintiffs/appellants herein filed a suit for declaration of right of easement and injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing their right to take over D schedule property. The suit was decreed in part by fixation of boundary in the southern and eastern side of the plaint A scheduled property in accordance with Ext.C3 plan. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.137/2000 before the III Additional District Court, Kollam. The First Appellate Court found that during the course of adducing the evidence, it has come out that certain portion of the plaint scheduled property which comprises of 47 cents is in the possession of the defendants based on a claim for adverse possession. This finding was rendered presumably based on the reduction in the extent of property in the hands of the plaintiffs after a re-survey was conducted in the year 1980. But, however, the First Appellate Court found that as regards the plea of adverse possession, the defendants were not even sure with regard to the extent of property they were in possession adverse to the plaintiffs. Nonetheless, a plea was taken in the written statement by stating that any such extent found to be in their possession after measurement is lying with the defendants adverse to the plaintiffs and their predecessors. The First Appellate Court was of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the parties were not considered properly and discussed by the judgment and that the defendants did not prove when the possession started adversely to the plaintiffs/appellants herein. Hence, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree was modified and the matter was remanded back for a fresh consideration. On remand, the Trial Court framed an additional issue as follows: “Whether the plaintiff’s right over 10.426 cents of property which is part and parcel of the plaint A schedule is lost due to adverse possession and limitation ?” On remand, on behalf of the defendants, DW4 to DW6 were examined and DW1 was re-called and re-examined. On remand, the Trial Court framed an additional issue as follows: “Whether the plaintiff’s right over 10.426 cents of property which is part and parcel of the plaint A schedule is lost due to adverse possession and limitation ?” On remand, on behalf of the defendants, DW4 to DW6 were examined and DW1 was re-called and re-examined. The Trial Court, though, came to conclusion that the evidence of DW6 was insufficient to prove the hostile animus possession of the defendants over 10.426 cents of property, nevertheless decreed the suit, by allowing the plaintiffs to fix boundary only up to 36.574 cents as shown in the Ext.C3 plan. But, however, declared that 10.426 cents of property is lost due to adverse possession and limitation. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.233/2006 before the Addl. District Court-I, Kollam, which was dismissed by judgment dated 29.10.2011 and hence, the present appeal. 3. While admitting the appeal on 31.10.2013, this Court framed the following substantial question of law: “Did the courts below go wrong in holding that the defendants have prescribed the title by adverse possession and limitation based on the pleadings and evidence available in the case?” 4. Heard, Sri.Leo George, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri.P.U.Shailajan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 8 and 10. 5. Sri.Leo George, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, asserted before this Court that the findings rendered by the courts below as regards the question of adverse possession is not only perverse, but vitiated by material irregularities and contrary to the evidence on record. The learned counsel took this Court through the findings rendered by the First appellate court in the earlier appeal i.e. A.S.No.137/2000 and contended that the plea of the defendants regarding adverse possession was not found in favour by the First Appellate Court for want of precise averments in the written statement and also evidence in support of the said plea. It was precisely for that reason, the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. Though, on remand, the defendants were permitted to adduce evidence, the Trial Court entered a specific finding by disbelieving the evidence of DW6 to come to the conclusion that the evidence is lacking insofar as the date on which the defendants’ possession became hostile to the plaintiffs’. Though, on remand, the defendants were permitted to adduce evidence, the Trial Court entered a specific finding by disbelieving the evidence of DW6 to come to the conclusion that the evidence is lacking insofar as the date on which the defendants’ possession became hostile to the plaintiffs’. It is further pointed out that, merely because there is a reduction in the property based on resurvey, the defendants cannot claim title over the plaintiffs’ property. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs were paying tax to the entire extent of 47 cents. 6. Per contra, Sri.P.U.Shailajan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 8 and 10, countered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the resurvey records evidently show that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the entire extent of property. The resurvey having been done based on possession is certainly an evidence regarding the time from which the plaintiffs lost the possession adverse to the defendants. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of this Court in Raman v. S. Devadasa Maller and others , 1991 KHC 16, Devaki Pillai v. Gouri Amma , 2003 KHC 71 and Kerala State Represented by the Chief Secretary, Trivandrum and Others v. Brijit and Others , 2018 (2) KHC 521 . 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and have perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and also the records of this case. 8. The answer to the substantial question of law framed by this Court hinges on a narrow compass. The defendants claim possession over 10.426 cents of land on the basis of an adverse possession. The relevant statements in the written statement is extracted as under: 9. As against this plea, when the parties adduced evidence and the Trial Court declined the prayer of the plaintiffs for fixation of the boundary to the entire extent of 47 cents covered by Ext.A2 document of transferring their favour in the year 1965, A.S.No.137/2000 was preferred by the appellants which resulted in the judgment dated 08.11.2005. A reading of paragraph 24 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court remanding the suit for fresh consideration evidently shows that the Appellate Court found that the alternate plea of adverse possession was not supported by any of evidence. A reading of paragraph 24 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court remanding the suit for fresh consideration evidently shows that the Appellate Court found that the alternate plea of adverse possession was not supported by any of evidence. Paragraph 24 is extracted for reference as under: “The appellants pleaded as an alternate case in the plaint that if in any event any portion of A schedule was lost, it has to be recovered from defendants 1, 2 and 7. Similarly, in answer to this, they also contended alternatively that such possession if found to be with them was lost by adverse possession. But of course the plea of adverse possession was not set out in the written statement in clear or precise terms. Nonetheless such a plea is evident as substantially raised in the written statement by reading of their whole contentions. The trial court nevertheless failed to raise an appropriate plea on adverse possession and consider whether appellants have subsisting title over plaint A schedule or else it was lost by adverse possession of defendants 1, 2 and 7. The evidence adduced by parties in this regard was not considered and discussed in the judgment. It has to be proved when did the possession start adversely to appellants. No independent evidence was adduced by the defendants in support of plea of adverse possession. Since there is failure on the part of trial court in framing a specific issue on adverse possession and consider it on evidence, the appropriate course which I consider as just and proper is to remand the case to the lower court for this limited purpose. This question of adverse possession alone now remains to be considered in the suit as the vital issue. Question of title, recovery and putting of boundary etc. could be considered only along with the question of adverse possession and not independently ignoring the plea of adverse possession. Therefore I have reasons to interfere with judgment and decree of the lower court and they have to be set aside for ordering remittal of the case for considering and deciding the issue of adverse possession. In view of what is stated above points 2 to 6 are answered in the above terms.” 10. On remand, it is undisputed that DW1 was recalled and examined and DW4 to DW6 were examined afresh to prove the plea of adverse possession. In view of what is stated above points 2 to 6 are answered in the above terms.” 10. On remand, it is undisputed that DW1 was recalled and examined and DW4 to DW6 were examined afresh to prove the plea of adverse possession. Surprisingly, the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants was disbelieved by the Trial Court. A reading of the judgment of the Trial Court after remand clearly shows that, the Trial Court did not accept the evidence adduced by the defendants and held that it is not proved when exactly the possession of the defendants over 10.426 cents became adverse and hostile to the plaintiffs. Paragraph 7 of the judgment reads as under: “7. After remand even though DW6 was examined to prove the adverse possession of the defendants her testimony will not create any confidence in me to come to a conclusion that the defendants have got hostile animus to possess 10.426 cents of property. But the testimony of DW6 would show that she did not even know the entire extent of the property conveyed through Ext.A1 document. Moreover according to her she is not managing the properties.” 11. Pertinently, after the remand, the defendants never chose to amend the pleadings in the written statement. With the evidence on record and also the averments in the written statement as regards the adverse possession, the Trial Court came to the following conclusion: “11. So the next question to be considered is when the above said 10.426 cents of property came into the possession of the defendants. There is specific pleading in the written statement of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 which would state that if after measurement of property of any excess land is found in their possession of the defendants 1 and 2 they have got it right from 1107 M.E. onwards. But that argument will not hold good because at the time of Ext.A2 the plaintiffs were in possession of 47.cents.” 12. Therefore, with the aforesaid findings, it becomes evident that, only a vague assertion is available that the possession of the defendants over 10.426 cents is adverse to the plaintiff from 1107 M.E. onwards and hence rightly rejected by the courts below. But then, the Trial Court did not deem it appropriate to decree the suit despite these infirmities on side of the defendants. But then, the Trial Court did not deem it appropriate to decree the suit despite these infirmities on side of the defendants. The Trial Court was of the opinion that, because of the discrepancy in the extent of property due to the resurvey in the year 1980, which caused the reduction of the extent of property, the plaintiffs ought to have instituted the suit within 12 years from the date on which the resurvey was completed. In the considered view of this court, the aforesaid finding will not go in synchronization with the findings rendered in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment which is extracted by this Court. 13. It is settled law that change in extent of property in resurvey will not confer any title over the property. As stated, the defendants having failed to establish when they came into the possession of 10.426 cents adverse to the plaintiffs, certainly the plaintiffs were entitled for consequential decree. This is more so, when it is an admitted case that the disputed area between the plaintiffs property and the defendants property is not separated by a well demarcated boundary and this is precisely the reason why the plaintiffs have sought fixation of the boundary in the eastern and southern side. Therefore, the non-availability of a clear demarcated boundary between the plaintiffs’ property and the defendants’ property is a clear indication that the possession of defendants even if over the plaintiffs’ property was without any clear indication to the plaintiffs. 14. The decisions cited across the Bar by the learned counsel for respondents 1, 8 and 10, would no doubt aid the cause projected by him, provided the defendants had adduced sufficient evidence to support the plea. This Court has already noticed that despite an order of remand, the defendants did not choose to amend their written statement by incorporating necessary averments regarding the details as regards the exact date on which they came into possession of the property of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the precedents cited across the Bar cannot aid the defendants for the simple reason of lack of proper evidence to support their plea. 15. Resultantly, this Court is of the considered view that the substantial question of law framed by this Court is to be answered in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. Therefore, the precedents cited across the Bar cannot aid the defendants for the simple reason of lack of proper evidence to support their plea. 15. Resultantly, this Court is of the considered view that the substantial question of law framed by this Court is to be answered in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, by reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.480/1994 of the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally, as confirmed in A.S.No.233/2006 by the Addl. District Court-I, Kollam. Resultantly, the suit is decreed as prayed for. The plaintiffs are entitled for fixation of boundary in terms of Ext.C3 plan and the boundary shall be fixed, including the portion shown as 11.1 and 11.2 in the eastern side and 13.1 and 13.2 in the southern side. Cost will follow.