The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of appointing an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a Government Surveyor and reference to public records and documents of both sides for precise measurement and location of the disputed property.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the original defendant, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2008 passed in A.S.No.160 of 2007 by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned VIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.3214 of 2004. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial

2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

(i) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men or agents acting through him from interfering with plaintiff's possession of suit schedule 'B' property;

(ii) For mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the pillars raised on suit schedule 'B' property; and

(iii) for costs.(Extracted as such)

(b) The defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit.

(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues.

(d) During trial, the plaintiff-A.M.Sekar examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2-Thangadurai and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. The defendant-Pasupathi examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as Court documents.

(e) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

3. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of the both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the Courts below could ignore the suit documents namely Exhibits A1 and A2 filed by the respondent/plaintiff to establish his case.

(2) Whether the Courts below could ignore the plaint averments contrary to Exhibits A1 and A2.

(3) Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit on the basis of oral evidence of respondent/plaintiff which is contrary to Exhibit A1.

(4) Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff when he approached the Honourable Court with false case contrary to Exhibit A1 and A2.

(5) Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of Commissioner's report and the plan submitted by the Commissioner ignoring the suit documents Exhibits A1 and A2."

(extracted as such)

4. My learned Predecessor virtually adopted the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

5. Heard both sides.

6. After hearing both sides, I have also formulated one additional substantial question of law to the effect that:

(6) Whether the Advocate Commissioner measured the suit property properly and that too, in the absence of the assistance of a Government Surveyor and also public records and maps concerned?

7. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the discussion would run thus:

The plaintiff is claiming to be the owner of the superstructure of the property referred to in Ex.A1 - the sale deed dated 30.09.1985, and as a lease holder of the ground on which the superstructure stands with certain appurtenant areas, totally measuring an extent of 1431 sq.ft. The defendant is owning property to the west of the plaintiff's property. According to the contention of the plaintiff, the defendant after demolishing his old house, while starting to construct a new house attempted to trespass into the plaintiff's property to an extent of 2 feet on the western portion of the plaintiff's property which alone evoked the filing of this suit.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that Ex.A2 is the approved plan, which would clearly show that the plaintiff is having two feet width of passage on west of the built up portion of the plaintiff, whereas, the defendant after demolishing his compound wall and while raising new structure, attempted