7.The case of the respondent is that the petitioners encroached upon 'B' and 'C' schedule properties, which are respondent properties and when 'B' and 'C' schedule properties are allegedly encroached upon and are under the control of the petitioners, it may not be possible for the respondent to give the correct measurements. Secondly, the burden of proof is cast upon the respondent as plaintiff to prove the exact measurement of the encroachment. Moreover he has sought for number of purposes in the prayer and if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed only, the above facts would be noted and it will be go in a long way to adjudicate the issue. Moreover the relief of demarcation is also sought for in the suit. Therefore, exact measurements and the identity of the properties, alleged encroachment and location of the compound wall and demarcation are necessary and it is possible only with the help of the Advocate Commissioner. For the above reasons only, the trial Court allowed the petition and appointed the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is no dispute with regard to identity of the property is not sustainable.
