ANITHA T.N. Vs. AYYAPPAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT .P8, order passed by the learned Munsiff, Perumbavoor in O.S.No.168 of 2010 refusing to set aside the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner as prayed for in I.A.No.2023 of 2011 is under challenge.

(2.) PETITIONER /plaintiff sued the 1st respondent, originally for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain him from trespassing into the plaint A schedule and constructing compound wall by closing the entrance by reducing the width of the entrance of plaint A schedule property from the road on the southern side. Later, respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded as additional defendants 2 and 3.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that measurement made by the Surveyor is not correct. According to the learned counsel, survey stone was found on the western side of the basement and if measurement is based on that survey stone, it could be seen that the basement is constructed within the plaint A schedule. Learned counsel submits that if the basement as reported by the Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor remains, petitioner's access to the road on the southern side will be blocked. Learned counsel has also referred me to the report and plan and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.