SUKUMARAN CHETTIYAR Vs. K.RUSSEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concurrent findings in OS No.460/2005 on the files of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, a suit for fixation of boundaries and permanent prohibitory injunction, are questioned by the defendants on the ground that the identification of the property by the advocate commissioner was flawed and that the trial court did not apply its mind to the objections raised by the defendants to the report of the advocate commissioner.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

(3.) On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked and PW1 was examined. On behalf of defendants, Exts.B1 to B22(a) documents were marked and DW1 was examined. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are the report and plan submitted by the advocate commissioner. CW1 is the commissioner who inspected the property and CW2 is the surveyor who assisted the commissioner. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration: