of 7 1/2 cents in the suit survey number however, pointing to the abovesaid claim of the defendants, there is no acceptable and reliable materials forthcoming on their part. As rightly concluded by the Courts below, the problem seems to have erupted at between the parties during the resurvey/Updating Registry Scheme. From the Commissioner's report and plan marked in the proceedings, it is evident that though the plaintiff is found to have acquired the extent of 15 cents in the survey No.62/6, on ground, it is found that the portion in the occupation of the plaintiff is lying in survey Nos.62/6 C, 62/6B, 62/6A and 90/1 and on that basis, it is found that, as held by the Courts below, the defendants are claiming that the plaintiff is endeavouring to encroach into their remaining portion in the survey No.62/6. A suit is also found to have been laid by the defendants against the plaintiff in O.S.No.389/1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. Considering the plaint copy of the abovesaid suit marked as Ex.A6, it has been mentioned by the defendants that the extent of 7 1/2 cents over which they claim title is lying to the west of 15 cents alienated by them to the plaintiff. However, it is seen that the abovesaid suit had come to be dismissed for non prosecution. As above pointed out, when as at present the plaintiff's suit is lying in four survey numbers as depicted by the Commissioner in his report and plan, when the defendants have failed to establish that the extent of 7 1/2 cents claimed by them is lying in the abovesaid survey numbers and on the other hand, as held by the Courts below, the defendants having admitted that as per the description of their property in O.S.No.389 of 1986, the extent of 7 1/2 cents is lying only in survey 62/6 B, in such view of the matter, the defendants cannot be allowed to disturb the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the 15 cents in the abovesaid survey numbers, which had been admittedly alienated to him by the defendants and their father.
