N.K.Balakrishnan, J.

The defendant is the appellant the suit OS No.74/1998 was filed for fixation of the western boundary of the plaint schedule property. The aforesaid suit was tried along with O.S. No.6/1998. There, the appellant was the plaintiff, but the defendant was stated to be the respondent's brother's son the trial court granted a decree in OS No.6/1998 against the defendant therein. The suit OS No.74/1998 filed by the respondent for fixation of boundary was dismissed.

2. Evidence was recorded in OS No.6/1998. The appellant herein was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1, A2 and A2(a) were marked. Exhibits B1, B2 and B2(a) were marked on the side of the respondents herein The Commissioners report and plan were marked as Exhibits C1 to C6 The 1st respondent was examined as DW2 and the defendant in O.S. No.6/1998 was examined as DW1.

3. No appeal was filed by the defendant in O.S. No.6/1998. But, that will not in any way affect the case of the appellant or the respondents in this case.

4. The trial court dismissed OS No.74/1998. The plaintiff therein filed appeal The appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and granted a decree in favour of the respondents.