entertained. As against the said order, no further challenge has been made by the defendants before the higher forum. Therefore, it is seen that the plaintiff claims title to the suit property consisting of 48 cents in S.No.60/1B within the specific boundaries. As rightly held by the Courts below, considering the revenue documents projected in the matter, marked as Exs.A11 to 19, it is seen from Ex.A11 proceedings, the plaintiff's vendor Venkatasami Reddiar had been assigned 62 cents out of 86 cents in S.No.60/1 and the remaining extent in S.No.60/1 has been marked as “Tharisu”. Subsequently, it is seen that the S.No.60/1 had been subdivided as 60/1A and 60/1B. As concluded by the Courts below, the Courts below on a perusal of Ex.A12, it is seen that only S.No.60/1B had been assigned in favour of the plaintiff's vendor. The plaintiff has furnished the correct boundaries and extents both in the sale deed marked as Ex.A1 as well as in the plaint, however, in the patta granted to the plaintiff marked as Ex.A2, the survey number is shown as 60/1A measuring 48 cents and the same is also reflected in Ex.A5 patta pass book and the chitta extract marked by the plaintiff. Considering the field maps projected in the matter, it is noted that the S.No.60/1 had been subdivided as S.No.60/1A and S.No.60/1B, but as per the Commissioner's report, the S.No.60/1A has been given a new survey number as 60/1 and 60/1B has been given new survey number 60/3.
