The judgment reinforces the doctrine of res judicata by affirming that prior established findings regarding property ownership in boundary disputes must be adhered to in subsequent litigations.

COMMON ORDER

These two Civil Revision Petitions are interconnected to each other and as such are taken up and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P (MD) No.1405 of 2022 is filed against an order dated 08.06.2022 made in E.P.No.67 of 2014 in O.S.No.70 of

2002. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P (MD) No.175 of 2024 is filed against the order dated 01.11.2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.130 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bodinayakanur. By the said order, the prayer of the plaintiffs in the suit to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property was dismissed by the Trial Court. 3. The factual matrix in which these controversies arise are as follows:-

3.1. The decree holder in O.S.No.70 of 2002 is one K.S.Ramaraj.

According to him, he is the owner of the property admeasuring 4.93 cents in Survey No.77/4-B10 measuring 15.6 meters East to West and 12.8 meters North to South, in all totaling to 129.68 square metres;

3.2. The defendant in the suit, namely R.S.Rajendran, is the owner of the property which is on the western side comprised in 77/4B and 77/5. They are running a cinema theatre in the said property. While so, when they have put up construction in their entire extent of their property, however they have shown an emergency exit on the western side thereby meaning that if people come out of the emergency exit, then they have to land up only in the plaintiffs' property and thus, claiming ownership to the lane which is in between the plaintiffs'

house and their theatre, which is nothing but the plaintiffs' property.

3.3. As a matter of fact, the said K.S.Ramaraj filed O.S.No.70 of 2002 claiming so and praying for a permanent injunction restraining the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

3.4. The said suit was resisted by the defendant in the suit, namely, R.S.Rajendran by tracing their title to the Survey No.74/2 and Survey No. 77/5A etc. They have contended that there is further space after their theatre building which belongs to them to an extent of about one and half metres in width. It is their contention that in keeping the exit gate as well as in showing the said lane as their property, they have not encroached even an inch on the suit property belonging to the plaintiff. It is their further case that the description of the property and the boundaries in the schedule of the property in the plaint itself would actually go to show that they have not encroached into the plaintiffs property. In that background, the parties went into trial and the Trial Court framed the following reliefs:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property;

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.

4. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit after considering the measurements and the evidence on record. It is essential to extract the relevant paragraph in the First Appellate Court's judgment:-

“At this juncture, it is to be seen that the plaintiff has filed objections Ex.A9 for the report of the commissioner. So, the commissioner's warrant was reissued and again the commissioner has measured the property with another surveyor on 27.11.04 and fresh commissioner's report Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 filed. Even in this report and plan. The measurement of survey number 77/4B10 is given as 14.3 metres on the northern side and 15.2 metres on the southern side, thereby corresponding and correlating to the earlier report and plan. The measurements given by 3 different persons on 3 different occasions under Ex.B3, Ex.C2, Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 reveal that the actual measurement on ground in respect of survey number 77/4B10 cannot be morethan what it was actually before sub-division of survey numbers 77/4B10 comes within survey number 77/5B the east west measurement on its northern side cannot be more than 14.3 metres (73 links) and cannot go beyond the survey number 77/5B so as to