The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to specifically determine the location of the suit property to resolve a property dispute.

1. This Second Appeal is focused by the LRs. of the original third defendant/V.K. Ramanathan, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 212. 2005 passed in A.S. No.47 of 2005 by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Courts namely, Principal District Munsifs Court, Namakkal, in O.S. No.171 of 2004. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

2. A summation and summarization of relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

The plaintiff/first respondent filed the Suit as against the defendants for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The defendants entered appearance and D3 filed the written statement resisting the Suit.

3. The Trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Exs.A1 and A13 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

4. Ultimately, the Trial Court decreed the Suit, as against which the Appeal was filed by D3 (Rep. by his LRs.), for nothing but to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgment and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal is sought to be filed on various grounds and also by suggesting some substantial questions of law.

5. Heard both sides.

6. A plain poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers including the copies of the judgments of both the Courts below and also consideration of the arguments on either side would demonstrate and display that the plaintiff filed the Suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. In both the Courts below she succeeded. Whereas, the third defendant filed the First Appeal challenging and animadverting upon the first item having been directed to be delivered possession by D3 in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Suit.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would advance his argument to the effect that originally a vast extent of the property belonged to a Trust and from the Trust, Christa Merry the vendor of D3 purchased the property and from her, D3 purchased the property under Ex.B1 and as such, as per Ex.B1, the defendant is entitled to enjoy the property; according to D3 (Rep. by his LRs.), Ex.B1 refers to the first item of the suit property; without identifying as to where exactly the property of the plaintiff situates, illegally the plaintiff is trying to encroach into the property covered by Ex.B1. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would succinctly and precisely submit that if the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court with a direction to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the first item of the suit property and locate the same, then the entire dispute would come to an end.

8. Whereas, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that out of the two items of suit properties, regarding second item of the suit property is concerned, D3 (Rep. by his LRs.) had no objection and only in respect of first item of the suit property, he filed the Appeal as well as the Second Appeal herein. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court understanding that the plaintiffs vendor as per Ex.A3 purchased the first item of the suit property and the plaintiff purchased it from him as per Ex.A2, held that the plaintiff is entitled to 416 sq.ft. of property in the first item of the suit property, that the defendants unlawfully trespassed in to the suit property, and erected superstructure and that thereby they are in eruption of the suit property.

9. The learned Advocates for both sides drew the attention of this Court to various portions of the judgments of both the Courts below and the impression which I cou