counsel, there was some mistake in the new survey numbers mentioned in the plaint which was corrected by appropriate amendment. It is contended by the learned counsel that Ext.C4 and C4(a), report and plan were remitted to the Advocate Commissioner who then submitted Exts.C3 and C3(a) and a reading of the said report and perusal of the plan would show that there is proper identification of the suit property. It is pointed out by the learned counsel from Ext.C3 that the Advocate Commissioner has identified the property and reported that the suit property claimed by first respondent and the property claimed by the appellant as per Ext.B1 are one and the same. My attention is also drawn to the evidence first respondent has adduced. A further argument learned counsel has advanced is that Ext.B1 has no sanctity under the law since it is executed by the second respondent without any authority, having no title over the property. Learned counsel pointed out that in Ext.B1, the second respondent has traced his title to Will No.154/1980 allegedly executed by his father, Thankappan. But a perusal of Ext.A24, judgment of the learned Sub Judge, Palakkad in L.A.R. No.14 of 1995 shows that the claim made by the second respondent (claimant No.20 in the LAR) based on Will No.154/1980 was found against holding that the said Will is not genuine. The second respondent is bound by the said finding and hence was not competent or entitled to convey right, title,
