VILASINAIAMMA Vs. SARALADEVI D/O DEVAKI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit as originally filed was one for fixation of boundary of the plaint A and B Schedule property in its entirety. There was also a prayer for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs constructing the compound wall. The suit was pending as O.S.No.504/2007 on the file of the court of the II Additional Munsiff of Ernakulam. An Advocate Commissioner was deputed in the suit who had filed a report with a rough sketch.

(2.) THE plaint was later amended confining the relief to fixation of southern boundary of the plaint A schedule property alone. A relief of declaration of title in regard to the plaint B schedule property was also sought by way of amendment. The plaint B schedule property formed part of the plaint A schedule property and denoted the portion remaining after alienations.

(3.) IT is trite law that a second Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed without setting aside the report and plan of the first Advocate Commissioner. Therefore the order of the court below refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the second time cannot be faulted with. But then the very same plaint has been re-presented to the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam after amendment. Therefore the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner can very well be remitted to the same Advocate Commissioner.