Ramachandran, J.

This second appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Judge of North Parur in A.S.No. 213/87 which arose from the judgment and decree of the Munsiff of Perumbavoor in O.S. No. 539/84.

(Paras 2 to 6 omitted being appreciation of facts)

7. WhenthemattercameupinappealbeforethelowerappellateCourt.theplaintiff filed petition to send out a fresh commissioner. That was allowed by the lower appellate Court without setting aside Exts. C1 and C1 (a). Further, the self-same commissioner was not sent and another commissioner was sent. That Commissioner was examined as DW. 4. DW. 4 prepared Ext. C2 report and Ext. C2(a) plan. Thus, alleging that the order of injunction was violated by the defendants another commissioner was sought to be sent by a separate petition. The lower appellate Court allowed it and a third commissioner was deputed. Thus, the 3rd commissioner prepared Ext. C3 report and Ext. C3(a) rough sketch. That commissioner was examined as PW. 4 before the lower appellate Court. DW. 3 was the Village Officer who was present and assisted DW. 4 at the time of his inspection. The judgment of the lower appellate Court shows that all the reports and plans were correct. Under point No. 3 raised by the lower appellate Court regarding the identity of the property, the lower appellate Court held that the second commissioner was sent for better elucidation and identification of the plaint schedule property. The lower appellate Court held that Ext. Cl report was correct and that the commissioner did not find any discrepancy of with reference to the boundaries as shown in Ext. C2 report. The lower appellate Court relied on Ext. C3(a) plan to show that the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property was shown as the property of Moideen and that no objection was raised against the demarcation of the property. Thus, the lower appellate court held that the facts elucidated by the commissioner in Ext. C3 also supports the case of the plaintiff that the eastern boundary of this property is the property of Moideen. Then the lower appellate Court proceeded and stated that by virtue of the identification made in Exts. Cl to C3, it could be found that the northern boundary of the property which belonged to the plaintiffs father was originally road and now the P.V.I, canal. In another portion of the same judgment, the lower appellate Court held that from Exts. C1 to C3, it is clear that a portion of the southern property is the property owned by defendants 1 and 2 and that property covered by Exts. A7 and A8. It was also held that the identification made by the commissioner in Ext. Cl(a) and C2(a) tallied with the plaint schedule descriptions in Exts. Al to A4. Itis clear that the lower appellate Court relied on Exts. C1 to C3. Towards the end of Paragraph 7 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it was held that the identification made through Ext. Cl(a) and the details supplied by Ext. C1 are found to be correct and there was little chance to have doubt about the veracity of that report. Thus, the view of the lower appellate Court was that the property was properly identified by Exts. Cl and Cl(a). If that was so, there was no necessity to send a second commission. But the lower appellate Court proceeded to state that the plaint schedule property has been identified to the satisfaction of the Court through Exts. C2 and C2(a) as well. Finally towards the end of paragraph 8 of the judgment the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff proved his title over an extent of 1 acre and 93 cents shown in red shade and blue shade of Ext. C2(a) plan out of the plaint schedule property. Thus, the lower appellate Court took Exts. C2, C2(a) C3 and C3(a) as additional pieces of evidence for the purpose of proper identification of the plaint schedule property. It is clear that the procedure adopted by the lower appellate Court is illegal and unsustainable. It is the well-settled principle that without