JUDGMENT

Ext.P8, order passed by the learned Munsiff, Kayamkulam in O.S.No.31 of

2005 deputing an Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor to inspect the property with a direction to conduct local inspection and prepare a report and plan fixing boundaries on the basis of Ext.A1, partition deed and old survey plan and also to show the disputed C schedule way is under challenge.

2. Respondent/plaintiff sued petitioners/defendants, her sisters for fixation of boundary between A and B schedules allotted to them as per partition deed No.1192 of 1991. It is not disputed that as per the said partition deed, plaint A schedule was allotted to the respondent while plaint B schedule was allotted to the petitioners. In paragraph 3 of the plaint respondent laid claim over a pathway which according to her, originate from the Municipal road on the south, proceeded towards north along plaint A and B schedule items and then turned towards west through the plaint B schedule. Respondent claimed right of access through the said plaint C schedule. Petitioners contended that there is no such C schedule way as claimed by respondent either provided as per partition deed No.1192 of 1991 or even as per the original