would not disclose that the disputed Kattava is a part of the plaintiffs’ land. Similarly, exhibit B1, which is the title deed of DW1 in respect of his land, on a perusal would show that the Western boundary of defendant’s land is puntha. Therefore, the two documents which are of significance and some importance do not support the case of the plaintiffs. The Mandal Surveyor, who was a material witness and who was examined as DW4 had exhibited exhibits X1 to X4. Exhibit X1 is the copy of the FMB relating to the land of the plaintiffs and it shows that the plaintiffs land is in R.S.No.238. Exhibit X2 is the copy of the FMB pertaining to the land of the defendant and others and it dsicloses that the land of the defendant is in R.S.No.234/1. Exhibit X3 is the copy of the FMB of the puntha local fund road and it shows that the said puntha local fund road is in R.S.No.235. Thus, exhibit X3 is a document which makes it manifest that there is puntha in between the lands of the plaintiffs and the defendant and that the said puntha is in R.S.No235 and that it is described as puntha local fund road. Exhibit X4, the copy of the FMB, also discloses the existence of the puntha. Thus the documents in ‘X’ series, which are copies of public documents lay bare that the disputed puntha or Palmyra Kattava is a circari puntha and that it does not belong to the plaintiffs. Having analyzed the documentary evidence and other evidence which is of relevance and significance, the Courts below had recorded concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs could not establish that the Eastern side Palmyra Kattava is a part and parcel of their land and that on the other hand the evidence on record would show that Palmyra Kattava or Puntha is a circari puntha. Having analytically examined the facts and the findings of the Courts below, which are concurrent and supported by positive reasons, this Court finds that there is no merit in the contentions of the plaintiffs.
