based upon the answer elicited from the plaintiff-P.W.1 in the cross examination, coupled with the evidence of D.W.2 the disputed property measuring 0.2 cents is on the West of the admitted fence and in this regard, the defendant has stated that P.W.2-Govindasamy has admitted the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the location of the property with proper identification. The land on the Eastern portion of the fence line is under dispute. From the pleadings and evidence, it is projected as if, the suit property is on the West of the fence. It remains to be stated that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had projected the evidence in respect of the suit property. Furthermore, even in the written statement, the defendant has categorically stated that the suit property is in enjoyment of one Amudha-(daughter of the defendant). But, she was not added as a party-defendant. Furthermore, when the suit property refers to Eastern side of the fence, in the absence of any pleading or evidence as to who is the owner of the property, under whose enjoyment the suit property lies, also assumes significance.
