CHETTI CHINNA APPALASWAMI Vs. POONA LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 14-10-1993 this court made the following order:

(2.) Sri V.C.H. Naidu, the learned counsel representing the appellants would submit that the following substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the second appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel while elaborating his submissions had taken this court through the findings recorded by the learned Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam in O.S. No.1501 of 1980 and also the learned III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in A.S.No.64 of 1990. The learned counsel would contend that when specific measurements were given in the title deed/merely because boundaries had been mentioned, the same cannot be taken advantage of and the rest of the property in between cannot be claimed by the respondent herein-the plaintiff in the suit. The learned counsel also would maintain that in such a case general principle boundaries prevail over the "extents cannot be made applicable. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would maintain that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff may have to either succeed or fail on his/her own strength and cannot rely upon the weakness of the case of the defendants. The learned counsel also had taken this court through the report of the Commissioner and woulld maintain that even the report of the Commissioner was not appreciated in proper perspective and hence in any view of the matter inasmuch as the facts are not in serious controversy, the appellants are bound to succeed and the judgment and decree of the court of first instance may have to be restored by setting aside the judgment and decree made by the appellate court. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions. Submissions of Sri Subramanavam: