in his possession and enjoyment by the date of suit. However, that does not mean that defendants have no right to establish that remaining extent of the plaint schedule property after selling Ac.1-05 cts is only Ac.0-03 cts on ground but not Ac.0-20 cts. As already stated supra, what can be culled out from the respective contentions is that there is a serious dispute about the actual extent of the plaint schedule vacant site. When there is a dispute regarding the physical features, boundaries, extent etc., of the suit property, it is trite law that the Court can appoint an Advocate Commissioner to localise the suit property and such a local inspection can be done with the help of a qualified surveyor, if necessary, for, in such circumstances, the Court cannot adjudicate upon the real controversy only with the help of oral and documentary evidence without having the comprehension over the physical condition of the subject property. In Shaik Zareena Kasam ’s case(2 supra) and Nambada Varaha Narasimhulu ’s case (3 supra) cited by learned counsel for respondents, this aspect was discussed and held that when there is a dispute regarding boundaries or physical features of the property or any allegation of encroachment as narrated by one party and disputed by another party, the facts have to be physically verified because recitals of the documents may not reveal the true facts and measuring of the land on the spot by surveyor may become necessary.
