of which two cents was found to be in the possession of a third party and what remained is 2.63 acres. It is stated in Exts.C1 and C2 that on measurement of the extent, property belonging to the respondents was found to be 78 cents (as against the 66 cents originally stated in the plaint schedule) and the extent belonging to the appellants, as against 1.99 acres referred to in Ext.A4, is 1.85 acres. That report and plan were remitted to the Advocate Commissioner for fresh measurement as per tak descriptions referred to in the document. In Ext.C4, the Advocate Commissioner reported that for measurement of properties of the appellants as per Ext.A4, property was found to be not lying as per the tak stated in that document .and that the schedule of the document did not show that it was lying in taks. The Advocate Commissioner was directed to measure the properties with reference to the kole measurements. The report and plan as per that measurement are Exts.C5 and C6. Commissioner identified the green shaded portion in Ext.C6 as the property belonging to the appellants and the blue shaded portion on its south and east as the suit property belonging to the respondents. Courts below found that though there appears to be some difference in the kole measurement of the properties, boundaries tallied.
