southern boundary of item No.2). But according to the Surveyor, that Kayyala is not the survey boundary. Evidence of the Surveyor also show that there is a thodu on the southern side of the Kayyala and that the two metres situated towards north of the thodu is puramboke land. A further fact I must notice from the evidence of D.W.3 is that though he was not able to find survey stones on all sides of properties, there was a survey stone on the north-eastern corner of the property allotted to the second defendant as per Ext.A2, Will and that survey stone was found in tact. D.W.3 started measurement from that survey stone. The northern boundary of property allotted to the second defendant as per Ext.A2 is a Kayyala and lane on its further north. There is no serious dispute regarding that boundary. Thus D.W.3 was right in starting measurement from the survey stone found on the north-eastern corner of the property allotted to the second defendant as per Ext.A2, Will particularly as evidence shows that the northern boundary of the property allotted to the second defendant is the above said Kayyala and lane. Measured from that survey stone and taking the Kayyala and lane as northern boundary of property allotted to the second defendant, measurement tallied with the resurvey records. This D.W. 3 has clarified in specific words. A further fact courts below have
