S.EBANEZER Vs. A.CHELLAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent / plaintiff has laid the suit against the petitioner / defendant for declaration that he is entitled to the plaint second schedule roperty and for the consequential relief of recovery of possession of the same by removing the construction put up thereon and for further reliefs.

(2.) A reading of the plaint prima facie would go to show that even, according to the plaintiff, the second schedule of the suit properties forms part of the first schedule of the suit properties and according to the plaintiff, during his absence, the defendant, without having any right, had removed the boundary stones installed between the properties of the plaintiff and the defendant and thereby encroached the second schedule of the suit properties and put up a construction thereon and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendant for the appropriate reliefs.

(3.) It is found that at the instance of the plaintiff in I.A.No.2133 of 2011, the Court below was pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the plaint schedule property with the help of the Taluk Surveyor on the basis of the revenue records and accordingly, it is further seen that the Advocate Commissioner, so nominated, had also inspected the concerned property and filed his report and plan. Inasmuch as the plaintiff has not put forth any objection to the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner, it is found that the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner has formed part of the record.