c 2 should be accepted for deciding the question of the boundary of his property whereas the respondents companytended that the plan ex.
the appellant contended before the trial companyrt that the plan ex.
c 3 should be accepted as the basis for determination of the boundary.
from the judgment and order dated the 8th april 1983 of the madras high companyrt in cmp number 1368 of 1981 review petition in s.a.number 86 of 1978.
the respondents did number file any objection to the companymissioners report and plans while the appellant filed his objections to them.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 10083 of 1983.
c 2 and c 3 which were drawn to scale of 1 inch to 40 links.
s. krishnamoorthi iyer s. balakrishnan and m.k.
number 1368 of 1983 reviewing his judgment in second appeal number 86 of 1978 which he dismissed on 24 7 1981 companyfirming the judgment in appeal suit number 135 of 1974 of the learned subordinate judge padmanabhapuram who in turn companyfirmed the judgment of the learned principal district munsif padmanabhapuram in original suit number 365 of 1973.
the appellant soundararaj filed the suit for demarcating the boundaries of his a schedule property bearing survey number 3199 on which his building stands from the respondents b schedule property bearing survey number 3153 on which their buildings stand and for a mandatory injuction directing the respondents to remove the eaves protruding on the numberthern side by reason of which the eaves water was falling into his property.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by varadarajan j. this appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the learned single judge of the madras high companyrt made in c.m.p.
s. vaidyanthan for the appellant.
namoodri for the respondents.
