The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of legal provisions, particularly Order XXVI Rule 10(2) C.P.C., and the evidentiary value of Commissioner's Reports in property disputes.

The plaintiff, though succeeded in his claim before the trial Court, failed to sustain the decree before the first appellate Court and therefore, he is before this Court, as appellant.

2. The plaintiff/appellant has filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property, viz., 'B' schedule, for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant, to remove the fence put up in the said property, and for permanent injunction, contending that he had purchased the suit property from its original owner under registered sale deed, but the defendants, who are the neighbours, encroached upon the 'B' schedule property and put up a fence, thereby not only casting cloud over his title, but also put up a fence, compelling the plaintiff to file the suit, as said above, for the reliefs.

3. The defendants opposed the claim of the plaintiff contending, that even as per the description of property, 'B' schedule property could not be in existence, that the defendants never trespassed into the plaintiff's property, in order to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. In the additional written statements also, the defendants have questioned the right of the plaintiff, disputing the entire averments.

4. The trial Court recording the evidence of the plaintiff and the first defendant, as well as marking nine documents, on the side of the plaintiff and three documents on the side of the defendants, in addition Exs.C1 to C3, evaluated the same, on the basis of the plea and counter plea. The documents and the Commissioner's Report indicated that the parties, are fighting for the known property, though in the documents, survey numbers are not properly given, that the defendants had trespassed into the property of the plaintiff, to an extent of 190 sq.ft. and had also put up fence, which they are not entitled to do so. In this view of the matter, the trial Court has granted a decree as prayed for without cost, thereby causing dissatisfaction to the defendants.

5. The first defendant aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial Court, preferred an appeal before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court in A.S.No.68/91. The learned VI Additional Judge after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion, that the trial Court had committed an error in accepting the Commissioner's Report, which has been superseded, in view of the appointment of the subsequent Commissioner and that the sale deed of the first defendant is anterior in point of time, which would follow, the subsequent purchaser viz., the plaintiff cannot have better title. In this view, he reversed the finding of the trial Court, thereby ordering to dismiss the suit.

6. The plaintiff, questioning the first appellate Court's judgment, has filed this second appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

"1. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in the view it took that the appellant has not established the title to the B schedule properties.

2. Whether Ex.C2 would supersede Ex.C1?"

7. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. C.L. Vijayaraghavan, appearing for the appellant.

8. The subject matter of the suit is an extent of 38 feet, on the north, 40 feet on the south, 5 ft on the east and on the west 1½ ft., which is indicated in red colour, in the plaint plan. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is in new T.S.No.151 and its old Survey Number is 112. The 'B' schedule property, forms part of 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff claims title to the above said property, under Exs.A1, A2, A5, A6. The first defendant/1st respondent is the owner of northern side property. The suit property and the adjacent properties measuring an extent of 63 cents originally belonged to defendants (2) & (3). It seems they have plotted out the vacant site, numbering 12. In this area, plot No.12 was purchased by defendants 4 & 5, and plot No.11 was purchased by t