KUMARI MIDHU Vs. SATHYANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession and also for fixation of the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property, is the appellant in the second appeal.

(2.) The plaint schedule property measuring 1 acre 68 cents 250 square links belongs to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that there is no boundary separating the plaint schedule property from the property of the defendant which is situated on the south of the plaint schedule property and that therefore, the boundary separating the said properties has to be fixed. As the suit was for fixation of boundary, the plaintiff took out a commission and the Commissioner appointed by the court in this connection identified the plaint schedule property with the aid of a Surveyor not only in terms of the old survey records, but also in terms of the resurvey records. Ext.C3(a) is the plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner in this regard. In terms of the resurvey records, the property of the plaintiff was identified and shown in Ext.C3(a) plan as plot 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX' and in terms of old survey records, the property was identified and shown in the said plan as plot 'A1 ZDYHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXA'. As per Ext.C3(a) plan, the area of the plot 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX' is 1 acre 57 cents 830 square links and the area of the plot 'A1 ZDYHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXA' is 1 acre 59 cents. The trial court found that in so far as the extent of the plaint schedule property is only 1 acre 57 cents and 830 square links, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree sought in respect of the plaint schedule property measuring 1 acre 68 cents and 250 square links. The suit was accordingly, dismissed. Though the plaintiff took up the matter in appeal, the appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff as also the learned counsel for the defendant.