INDIRA Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.24/2000 on the file of Munsiff Court, Haripad.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that Ext.P8 communication of the Tahsildar shows that the there is no sub division of survey number 534/2-3, 534/2-2 and Ext.P6 survey plan shows that the disputed portion of the plaint schedule property which is the northern portion marked therein is in survey No.534/1 and Ext.P7 sketch prepared in LA 889/71 based on which respondents are claiming right shows that the said property is in survey No.516 and therefore Ext.P4 report and Ext.P5 plan submitted by the Commissioner is not correct. Learned counsel argued either in such circumstance I.A.1613/2005 should have been allowed by the learned Munsiff.