more feasible way, without assigning reasons, a comparison of Ext.C2(b) with that of Ext.C2(c) is necessary. At the outset, it could be noticed that Ext.C2(b) plan would depict the fact that the property not separated on south and north as per the schedule description in Exts.A3 and B3 and the line QR is not drawn as plain line in the east-west direction, but drawn in the north-west direction and southeast direction. Ext.C2(b) plan, in fact, is one prepared mainly on the basis of Resurvey. The defendant put up a case that the plaintif f s would claim property covered by Ext.A3 alone which is the prior title deed of Ext.A1. In Ext.C2(b) plan, plaint item No.3 property is shown as XUQYX as a plot in triangular shape. This is the property over which the plaintif f s seek declaration of title. In fact, the suit is one for declaring the title of the plaintif f s over plaint item No.3 property and the trial court as well as the Appellate Court disallowed the said prayer, since it is found that plaint item No.3 property identif i ed as per Ext.C2(b) plan in a triangular shape, is in deviation from the title deed descriptions.
