P V GOVINDA VARIER Vs. PARU AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree in Original Suit No. 33 of 1904 describes the land dealt with as north of a line marked in a plan attached to the decree. The claim now in question relates to Surrey No. 265/1, a field so described in a schedule attached to the same decree but not referred to by this number in the decree.

(2.) Evidence has been admitted to show that 265/1 was not included in the land to the north of the line marked in the plan attached to the decree and we think that such evidence was rightly admitted.

(3.) We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.