SAKTHIVEL Vs. GOVINDAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As only a short point is involved, we shall dispose of this revision today in the admission stage itself. The respondents filed the suit in O.S. No. 105 of 2014 in the District Munsif's Court, Kulithalai, Karur District. In the suit, they sought for injunction with respect to the property compromised in S. No. 541/11 bearing door No. 7/15, Service Connection, namely 050 -024 -377. The defendants filed written statement resisting the suit stating that they are in the suit property and in the written statement description of the suit property has been furnished. In the written statement Survey Number, Door Number and Service Connection are also given.

(2.) It is pertinent to note the description of property given in the suit schedule and in the description of property given in the written statement are not one and the same. They differ. In the circumstances, the second defendant filed I.A. No. 838 of 2014 for appointment of Advocate/Commissioner to note down the physical features with the help of a qualified surveyor.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that no document in support of the description of the property mentioned in the written statement has been given and the plea raised by the defendants has to be proved at the time of trial.