1. The present revision has been preferred before this Court against the judgment and decree in CMA No. 46 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Kancheepuram who passed a revisional order in E.A. No. 170 of 1979 in E.P. No. 132 of 1977 in O.S. No. 360 of 1966, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram.

2. The brief facts of the present Civil Revision Petition is that the plaintiff Ambulammal has filed a suit in O.S. No. 360 of 1966 for recovery of possession. On 25.10.1968 the suit was partly dismissed for recovery of possession and allowed in respect of title of the property. Thereafter, the said plaintiff preferred an appeal suit in A.S. No. 192 of 1969 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same the defendants in the original suit had preferred a second appeal in S.A. No. 502 of 1971 before this Court and the same was dismissed by the Judgment of this Court dated 08.12.1972.

3. The confirmation of the title and possession devolves upon the plaintiff/decree holder/ the present petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition. To enjoy the fruits of the decree the petitioner mother who is the original plaintiff have filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 132 of 1977. After the delivery was ordered the Court bailiff had executed the Court order by taking the delivery of the suit property. The delivery receipt also was enclosed in the typed set of papers for perusal of this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the respondents herein did not co-operate for the delivery. Hence, the petitioner filed an application for break open which was ordered with the police aid. The delivery was given to the petitioner. During the course of delivery, the respondents or their father did not make any objection to the bailiff, with respect of delivery of possession or made any complaint against the bailiff with respect of execution of decree. Thereafter, the decree would have executed with the boundaries and accordance with the decree. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subhaga and Others vs. Shoba and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 466, it is stated as follows:

“Once a property has been identified by boundaries, even if there is any discrepancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail. It is not necessary to survey all adjacent lands to find out whether an encroachment was made in property concerned. In present case, Commissioner having identified suit property by.”

6. The High Court has also upheld the title claimed by the plaintiff over the plot, Plot No. 1301/1 Ba. Once we accept the identification made by the Commissioner as was done by the first appellate court, it is clear that the plaintiff has the right to have the disputed construction removed and the well filled up. That a property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description is well established. Here the attempt had been to identify the suit property with reference to the boundaries and the Commissioner has identified that property with reference to such boundaries. Even if there was any discrepancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail. There was no occasion to spin a theory that it was necessary in this suit to survey all the adjacent lands to find out whether an encroachment was made in the land belonging the plaintiff. In this situation, we are satisfied that the judgment and decree of the High Court calls for interference. We are also satisfied that the lower appellate Court was justified in affirming the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff on the pleadings and the evidence in the case.

While making submissions in respect of taking delivery within the boundaries, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also pointed out the judgment cited in 1997 LW 365:

“Dina Malar Publications a Tamil daily, Rep. by