plaintiff’s property are mentioned. The plaintiff’s site is marked as ABCD in the plaint plan. Radhamma, the vendor of the defendant purchased vacant site of 70 square yards in Sy.No.681/D from the said Vasudevaiah through his GPA Holder under registered sale deed, dated 17.07.1991. In her sale deed, the boundaries and the measurements of the said property are mentioned. Further, in the sale deed of the defendant, dated 29.04.2002, which was executed by the defendant’s vendor, the measurements are shown in excess. The defendant’s site is shown as ‘EFGH’ in the plaint plan. The defendant’s vendor could not have conveyed a better title than what he/she actually possessed. Therefore, the defendant’s title deed insofar as the excess measurements and excess extents is not valid. While so, when the plaintiff is away from the village, the defendant encroached in the rasta (way), which was left on the Western side by the vendor of the plaintiff while constructing a compound wall and making constructions. The defendant encroached upon not only the rasta of four feet width but also the site of the plaintiff and opened a door way on the Eastern side and constructed a stair case and a compound wall high-handedly and the encroached portion is also shown in red colour and as ‘AA1, DD1’ in the plaint plan. The said rasta (way) was left by the plaintiff’s vendor for usage of the plaintiff and of owners of the plots situate towards North. Therefore, the suit is filed for removal of the said compound wall and the constructions made high-handedly by the defendant. Prior to the suit, a notice was also issued to the defendant. In the suit, a Commissioner was also appointed, at the request of the plaintiff, and he visited the properties and measured the same and filed a report. The Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features and fix the encroachments made by the defendant with the help of a Mandal Surveyor and file a report. A work memo with relevant points was also
