The main legal point established in the judgment is that in certain cases, when both parties agree to appoint a second commissioner due to mistakes in the first report, the evidentiary value of the first report is automatically detached. The court also highlighted the principle of estoppel, stating that a party who agreed to the appointment of the second commissioner cannot later argue against the second report.

These second appeals arise from a common judgement of the Subor­dinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam in A.S. Nos. 43 and 46 of 1986. Both these appeals were filed by one Balakrishna Menon. He died sometime later and hence his daughter Indira V. Menon and son-in-law K. P. V. Menon were impleaded as legal heirs in view of the recital contained in the assignment deed executed by him in favour of them. Deceased Balakrishna Menon was the second defen­dant in O.S. No. 809 of 1981 filed by his sister Padmavathy Amma. The rights of the first defendant Kochammini Amma were later assigned to Balakrishna Menon. Thus the main contest in these appeals is between Padmavathy Amma and legal heirs of Bala­krishna Menon.

2. The common facts involved in these appeals are narrated hereunder :

Balakrishna Menon long with his three sisters, Janaki Amma, Ammalu Amma and Kochammini Amma jointly purchased an item of property as per the deed No. 432/1125. That property was later divided among the sharers as per the partition deed No. 420/1966. Balakrishna Menon and his sister Kochammini Amma obtained their share of 351/2 cents jointly. In the year 1968 Kocha­mmini Amma executed a conditional sale deed in respect of six cents, a portion of the above joint property in favour of Padma­vathy Amma as per registered deed No. 1786/68 (Ext. A1 in O.S. 809/81). Kochammini Amma having failed to fulfill the conditions, the sale in favour of Padmavathy Amma became absolute. Thereupon Balakrishna Menon executed a registered deed releasing his rights in respect of the above six cents of land assigned to Padmavathy Amma. This six cents of land is the plaint A schedule property in O.S. No. 809/81. A portion of this property having an area of about 40 feet in length and 21/2 feet in width is the plaint B schedule property in the said suit.

Later a portion of the joint property belonging to Kochammini Amma and Bala­krishna Menon was again sold to one Sarada Amma leaving a balance of 13 cents. in the possession of Balakrishna Menon. In October 1981 Kochammini Amma released all her rights over the 13 cents. to Balakrishna Menon as per the released deed. Thus Balakrishna Menon became the absolute owner of this 13 cents. of land. This is plaint A schedule property in O.S. No. 1039/81.

O.S. No. 809/81 : In this suit filed by Padmavathy Amma, she prayed for a declara­tion of title and recovery of possession of plaint B schedule property. She had started construction of a residential building in plaint

A schedule property. When construction reached up to the level of sunshade, Kochammini Amma and Balakrishna Me­non, defendants in the suit, under the guise of putting up additional construction in the western side of their property encroached into plaint B schedule property. It was under that situation O. S. No. 809/81 was filed before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam.

O. S. No. 1039/81 : Balakrishna Menon who was the second defendant in O. S. No. 809/81 filed this suit before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam for a permanent prohi­bitory injunction restraining Padmavathy Amma from completing the construction of the building which she had put up in plaint B schedule property in O.S. 809/81. The plain­tiff's case is that the water from the sunshade of the building constructed by Padmavathy Amma falls into his property. It was in that background O.S. No. 1039/81 was filed by Balakrishna Menon with the aforesaid prayer.

The above two suits were tried together by the learned Munsiff as per order in I.A. No. 1241/83 in O.S. No. 809/81.

3. In O.S. No. 1039/81 the plaintiff Bala­krishna Menon as per the order in I.A. No. 4083/81 took out an Advocate-commis­sioner to prepare a sketch showing the lie of plaint A and B schedule properties. Ext. C3 is that report. The defendant Padmavathy Amma has filed objection against the said report on 6-1-1982.

Subsequently, Padmavathy Amma, the plaintiff in O.S. 809/81 filed I.A. 1223/83 for appointment of an Advocate-commissioner to measure out and ident