Commissioner for measurement with the help of surveyor,as well as to note down the physical features of thesubjectproperty.The defendants contended that thoughplaintiff is alleging that she is in joint possession of the suit schedule property along with the defendants, she failed to furnish theboundariesof the suit schedule property in the plaint.Admittedly, as cal be seen from plaint averments, the plaintiff has not mentioned theboundaries of the suit schedule property. In this regard,learned counselfor the plaintiff relied upon a decision in E. AchuthanNair v.P- Narayanan Nair and anotherl,wherein it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court thateven if the plaintiffhimself is uncertain about theprecise boundary appointment of Commissioner is proper. In theabove said decision there was dispute between theparties with regard to the precise boundary between the land of theplaintiff and the land of the defendant. Moreover, in the above saiddecision,the suit was filed by the plaintiff for demarcation of the property andother reliefs. But in the present case, there is no disputewith regard to demarcation or boundary dispute betweenthe parties. The plaintiff,who is the revision petitioner herein has liled suitfor partition againstthe
