1. The second appeal is by the defendant in a suit for putting a boundary wall between the plaintiff's northern plot and defendant's southern plot and to remove portion of item 2 building belonging to the defendant to the extent it abuts into the plaintiff's plot. The plaint averred that there existed no common boundary and that the parties were not aware that item 2 had made at the time of its construction an incursion into plaintiff's plot. The plaintiff had got the property measured by the Taluk Office and the defendant's refusal to abide by it had rendered the suit necessary.

2. The defendant in his written statement asserted that there was a boundary till 2 years previously and situate some short distance further to the north than item 2 building and the plaintiff had demolished the wall with dishonest motive; that any how the defendant was willing to have the boundary fixed with the help of the survey plans and put up the dividing wall in place as so ascertained.

3. The trial court had the help of a Commissioner to ascertain the limits of the respective holdings, not only with reference with the Taluk Plan produced by the plaintiff but also survey plan, though of th