The respondent plaintiff filed the suit out of which the appeal arises for a decree a specifying and demarcating the property companyprised in the plaint schedule as per the terms of the agreement dated June 25, 1960, referred to above, after taking a plan of the property b for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their people from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property and in any other manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and other reliefs.
Parties however arrived at a settlement and entered into an agreement dated September 25, 1960 by which the manner in which the boundary was to be ascertained was indicated and three arbitrators were numberinated to locate the precise boundary in accordance with the agreement.
The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for the reliefs mentioned by us earlier.
Disputes arose between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the precise boundary between the land of the plaintiff and tho land of the defendant.
The case of the plaintiff was that he had purchased the plaint schedule property of the extent of 1000 acres from Sha Manikalal Shivraj and Dr. C.C. John under a registered sale deed dated December 30, 19S9 after obtaining the permission of the Collector of Kozhikode on January 8, 1958.
The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the dismissal of the suit.
The Commissioner did in fact submit a report locating the boundary.
The first defendant who was part owner of the land forming the south western boundary of the plaint property also obtained a permission to fell trees in an extent of 100 acres lying in his land.
During the pendency of the suit the trial companyrt appointed a Commissioner to locate the boundary in the manner indicated by the agreement dated September 25, I960.
The Division Bench companysisting of Subramanian Poti and Viswanatha Iyer, JJ.
They found that there was numberbar to the suit or the grant of the relief claimed by the plaintiff.
The defendant is the appellant in this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
reversed the judgment of the trial companyrt.
They accepted the report of the Commissioner appointed by the trial companyrt and granted a decree in terms of the prayer made by the plaintiff.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that a suit for the demarcation of the boundary of a property was number maintainable where the plaintiff himself was uncertain about the boundary.
The arbitrators however declined to demarcate the boundary.
After purchasing the property, he obtained permission to fell timber and clear an area of 500 acres.
