by the defendants, they have specifically disputed the identity of the plaint schedule property. Though the identity of the plaint schedule property was disputed by the defendants, the plaintiff did not take out a Commission to identify the plaint schedule property. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. In the meanwhile, the defendants instituted O.S.No.760 of 2007 against the plaintiff alleging that a portion of their property is in the possession of the plaintiff. The Advocate Commissioner appointed in the said suit filed a report and plan, after conducting a local inspection for identifying the properties of the parties. The said suit was, however, not pursued by the defendants. The plaintiff obtained the certified copies of the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in O.S.No.760 of 2007 and produced the same in the appeal preferred against the decision of the trial court in the present suit. He also proved the said report and plan by examining the Advocate Commissioner who prepared it, as also the surveyor who assisted the Commissioner. The report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner referred to above were marked in the appeal as Exts.A3 and A3(a) respectively. The
