The judgment established the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue court in fixing boundaries and maintaining the boundaries of lands or sub-divisions of lands, and the limitations on the Civil Court in granting relief based on a finding that an entry made in any record of revenue survey or settlement is wrong.

( 1 ) PATEL Doddakempegowda the plaintiff in O. S. No. 357 of 1974 on the file of the Munsiff, ramanagaram, filed this second appeal. He is now represented by his legal respresentatives. He filed the suit against two defendants, Chikkeeregowda and Eregowda praying for possession of 16 guntas of land in Survey No. 158 of Gollahalli Village, Uyyamballi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts are that Survey No. 158 belonged to one Hayat Khan. Hayat Khan's sons are Rahimkhan, Jabbarkhan and Peerkhan. Jabbarkhan's wife is one Sabirab. Somewhere about 20 years prior to the institution of the suit on 11-12-1974 Rahimkhan, Jabbarkhan and Peerkhan amicably partitioned the land into three bits. The partitioning of the land was done east to west.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that when the land was partitioned as stated above, each brother got 1 acre 4 guntas in his actual possession and continued to enjoy the said area. After the death of jabbarkhan, Sabirabi his wife, executed a registered sale deed on 21-10-1967 transferring 1 acre 4 guntas that had fallen to her husband Jabbarkhan to the plaintiff and put him in possession. Since then he has been enjoying the said area which is the Southern bit in Survey No. 158. On 4-10-1970 defendant-1 Chikkeeregowda purchased the bit that had fallen to Peerkhan, that is, the northern portion, under a registerd sale deed. Defendant-2 Eregowda is the son of defendant-1. On 13-10-1972 defendant-2 purchased the middle bit that had fallen to the share of Rahimkhan under a registered sale deed.

( 4 ) IT is undisputed that the lands had not been mutually phoded and numbers of the subdivision had been allotted after survey. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 255 of 1972 praying for permanent injunction against the defendants as the defendants were interfering with his peaceful possession. That suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Again he filed O. S. No. 422 of 1973 against the defendants for the same relief, but the suit was dismissed on the ground that the property involved was not identifiable.

( 5 ) THE further averments in the plaint are that in the year 1972 the defendants got the lands 'surveyed, but the survey was done wrongly. Taking advantage of that wrong survey, the defendants encroached upon the 16 guntas of land out of the land which was in possession of the plaintiff. This they did prior to the institution of the suit.

( 6 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 contended that only 28 guntas was in possession of Sabirabi and prior to her in the possession of her husband Jabbarkhan and that the sale deed Exhibit P-1 mentions an extent of 1 acre 4 guntas that was actually given to the possession of the plaintiff and that they had not at all encroached upon any portion of land in possession of the plaintiff. They relied heavily on Exhibits D-5 and D-6 which are akarbund and tippani prepared by a Surveyor on 25-11-1972 and 26-11-1972. In this connection it may be remembered that this suit has been instituted on 11-12-1974, It may also be remembered that survey of these lands has been made as per Exs. D-5 and D-6 prior to the institution of O. S. No. 422 of 1973.

( 7 ) DEFENDANT-1 has died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence,. As. Nos. VIII to X have been filed for bringing his legal representatives on record after condoning the delay in filing an application for setting aside abatement, etc. Objections to. As. Nos VIII to X have been filed. The legal representatives sought to be brought on record are wife of defendant-1 and other children of defendant-1. I am clearly of opinion that this is a fit case that delay has to be condoned in getting the abatement set aside and legal representatives of defendant-1 respondent-1 are to be brought on record. Hence, I allow. As. Nos. VIII to X and direct that the cause title in the memorandum of appeal be amended. The cause title in this judgment is in accordance with the judgment.

( 8 ) THE undisputed fact is that even after the partition a