2.Both suits have been laid by the respective parties i.e. the suit in O.S.No.988 of 1995 has been laid by the appellant and the suit in O.S.No.1224 of 1985 has been laid by the respondent for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property situated in survey number 46/1A2. Materials placed on record go to show that, prior to the present suits, a suit in O.S.No.446 of 1976 has been pending between the parties concerned, in respect of the property comprised in survey No.46/1B. However, in so far as the present matter is concerned, it is seen that the property involved pertains to survey No.46/1A2 and accordingly, it is found that the appellant having failed to establish that survey No.46/1A2 is in her possession and enjoyment and on the other hand, as rightly determined by the Courts below, from Exs.B10 to B12 namely the adangal extracts, the Kists receipt and the certificate issued by the Tashildar concerned, evidencing that, it is only the respondent, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit survey number 46/1A2, the Courts below is found to have upheld the case of the respondent and held that, it is only the respondent, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property involved in the matter. That apart, the appellant's husband examined as P.W.1 has categorically admitted that there is no 'B' memo in favour of the appellant in respect of the suit survey number and also admitted that the suit survey number is only in the possession and enjoyment of the respondent and accordingly tendered evidence in the matter. Thus, the courts below on that basis also coupled that Exs.B10 to B12 upheld the case of the respondent that, it is only the respondent, who has been is possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
