has found that the ''B D'' imaginary line shown in Ex.C2 is the southern most boundary of the defendants' property. In other words, it would be the northern most boundary line of the suit lane. Further, as seen from the Commissioner's report and plan, Exs.C1 and C2 in the portion marked as '' B O'', bamboo padal is found and adjacent to the same, on the eastern side, trees are located and the Commissioner has also noted the width of the trees in his report and plan. With reference to the above physical features noted by the Advocate Commissioner, DW1 in his evidence has also admitted that their southern most limit ends with the toilet situated on the extreme southern side and they have no objections to the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner and further admitted that only within their limits, they have constructed their toilets and they protrude to an extent of 2.2 meters on the southern side and if the imaginary lane is drawn straight across the extended projection, their property boundary line can be fixed. Therefore, based upon the above admission of DW1, vis-a-vis, the Commissioner's report and plan, Ex.C1 & C2, the first Appellate Court had found that the imaginary ''B D'' line shown by the Commissioner will be the northern most boundary of the suit lane and accordingly, the first Appellate Court has found that to the south of the imaginary ''B D'' line, the defendants have no manner of right and title and accordingly, the first Appellate Court has also noted that the defendants' are not in possession and enjoyment of any portion situated to the south of ''B D'' line, shown in Ex.C2. Such being the position, the first Appellate Court has noted that the plaintiff had been having access only through the suit lane for reaching his garden from the house property.
