controversies, whether even if the entire 44 cents is on the west of lane plaintiff has absolute title and possession of plaint B schedule which the Advocate Commissioner has identified as plot OPQRFG in Ext.C4. That apart, identification of the property as per Ext.C4 is not based on any of the documents of title relied on by the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiff and referred to in Ext.A1. On the other hand going by Ext.C1, request of plaintiff was to measure the properties based on the survey plan (Ext.A6) and Ext.C2, plan marked in O.S.No.659 of 1978. It is not disputed that in O.S.No.659 of 1978, none of defendant Nos.2 to 4, not to say about defendant No.1 were parties. That was a suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction of some of his tenants from the building allegedly situated in plaint B schedule. Therefore, defendant No.1 cannot be said to be bound by Ext.C2 marked in O.S.No.659 of 1978. So far as measurement made as per Ext.A6 is concerned, that plan does not give any idea as to where exactly the plots assigned to the respective parties in Ext.A1 are situated. Instead, it only gives a plan of the total extent to 44 cents. As such, measurement made by the Advocate Commissioner and contained in Ext.C4 cannot be accepted. No reliance can be made on Ext.C4. Ext.C4 is therefore set aside.
