A SELVAPERUMAL Vs. A VADIVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.487 of 2007 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant. The respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the "A" schedule property and for recovery of "B" schedule property, which is part of "A" schedule property, from the defendant and also for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from September, 2003 to October, 2006 and for other reliefs.

(2.) The suit was decreed holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession and mesne profits can be ascertained only in a separate proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) Pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.487 of 2007, the decree holder/respondent herein filed E.P.No.1040 of 2009 to execute the decree in O.S.No.487 of 2007 and in that petition, he filed an application in E.A.No.553 of 2011 to appoint an advocate commissioner to identify the suit property with reference to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the layout attached with the sale deed. The advocate commissioner submitted a report stating that the property cannot be identified as per the title deed of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff/decree holder filed another application in E.A.No.3411 of 2011 for appointing another Advocate Commissioner to identify the suit property with reference to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the lay out, which has been attached with the sale deed. That the application was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor filed C.R.P.No.4981 of 2011. Both the appeal and the Civil Revision Petition were head together.