Revision filed against direction of court held not maintainable.

1. Narration of facts of writ petition will cover the circumstances under which the revision has been fled. Therefore, a separate narration of the facts in the C.R.P. is not necessary.

2. In the writ petition, petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records or the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.2 of 1994. L.A.3, dated 10.7.1995 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.

3. Writ petitioner, along with his brother N.Chandrasekaran (2nd respondent in C.R.P.), purchased garden land of an extent of 7 acres 36 cents in Survey No.385/1, in Chitragupthanpalayam Village, Dharapuram, along with another property of an extent of 3 acres 42 cents in Survey No.388/C, for Rs.31,000 from its previous owners. Respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition purchased 2 acres 66 cents in Survey No.385/1 and another 2 acres 81 cents in Survey No.385/2 along with well and motor as per sale deed 31.5.1978. Whileso, the property in Survey No.285/1 was subdivided in the year 1980 as 385/ 1 A, 385/1B, 385/1C and 385/1D. At the time of subdivision, S.No.385/lC was registered in the name of the petitioner and his brother, and since then, though the extent purchased by them was 7 acres 36 cents, it is wrongly shown as 6 acres 45 cents only. The deficiency of 91 cents was added to the property of respondents 3 and 4. Even though they had purchased only 2 acres 66 cents in S.No.385/1. The extent of property in their possession was shown far in excess and it was allotted a separate sub division number as Survey No.385/lB. The petitioner after finding that there is deficiency in the survey records in view of the sub-division, filed a suit as O.S.No.454/91, on the file of District Munsifs Court, Dharapuram, against respondents 3 and 4 for a declaration that they are entitled to 91 cents from the property in Survey No.385/lB now sub-divided in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and for recovery’ of possession of that piece of land. In that suit, respondents 3 and 4 filed a written statement contending that the property has been sub-divided and regarding 91 cents of land which is sought to be recovered, they have prescribed title by adverse possession. They justified the sub-division and contended that they are entitled to 91 cents.

4. Thereafter, the respondents 3 and 4 filed another suit as O.S.No.105 of 1992, on the file of the same court, for a declaration that they are entitled to 3 acres and 5 cents of land in Survey No.385/1B, contending that the southern boundary of their land is ‘Karai Vaikkal’, and for consequential injunction. The suit was also filed on the ground that they have prescribed title to the excess area than stated in the sale deed: Petitioner and his brother filed written statement in that case. Subsequently, an application was filed by respondents 3 and 4 to permit them to withdraw the suit, and the same was allowed permitting them to file a separate suit on the same cause of action. Thereafter, respondents 3 and 4 filed another suit as O.S.No.469 of 1994 for declaration of their title to the suit property of an extent of 3 acres 12 1/2 cents in Survey No.385/1B and for consequential injunction. Petitioner and his brother have filed a written statement and are contesting the suit. Petitioners filed I.A.747 of 1995 for appointment of Commissioner. Suffice it to say that ultimately the various proceedings mat came up before this Court for consideration in C.R.P.Nos.1368 of 1995 and

145 of 1996 were disposed of by a common order passed in those two revisions. Shivaraj Patil, J., as per his Order, dated 20.6.1996, directed that alil the properties covered by the various sale deed both in favour of petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 will be measured and 91 cents which is the subject matter of the dispute also will be located. It was directed that the same Commissioner will be deputed (for the same purpose. The question whether the petitioner and his brother have