2 » disputed tamarind tree is in
Sy.no.85/2(a) belonged to the
de]’evz<tdajftt; Therefore, I am of the opinion that
'possession and eryoyment of the disputed
tamarind tree existing on the east of the suit
property ……………………………………….. ..
R.S.A.No.]9/2007
_ 3 –
He is also examined as Du,’-.2. He has
subnlitted his report as per Ex.C.10.11
sketch as per Ext). 12. The learned trial Jigzdge A’
has considered. the report and e?videz’itte
Commissioner and rightly come'”t.o-a
that the disputed tam.arind tree Avtvttif»1irt~ V’
boundary of the properiy..i_0f’ the” dQ]:€’.I1vd:-{tfvll’:._:V
Plairittfj’ has filed his”a.oi;jectiot1.\\ fry’ the
Commissioners report. ,~’1″m{‘:r¥ia1(§ coLirt”has
Considered the objeottori’theV:plainti}ff to
the conintissiorieb 9 two
corrirnissio_t1e}%5_<;.l:'cire. ::(tp§)"Oit1tedV:irtV. 'this: case. The
trial coii,i.rt lobjections of
Plai.!tt;t£r/'lA'(';;;,»;j2lJ'zje:tt;:rr1t '=.tarid." 'tu3so'rdingly, it has
coristdeI'edV to the report of the
ConirmfssiorterAVat":he«–._'tiirie of final disposal of
U"l£?.,SLtil.u'4"TE':l€'Ct)I'Ill'f1it3:§iOl'1€?I' has measured the
the ljlaintiff and d.€jf€3T1dCtl"ll and shown
t'l1e'Piair'iti[T has failed to prove that he is in
R.S.A.N0.19/2007
The finding of the two Couriis below that the tama.1"ind
tree is amt. in the property of the appei1ant/ pIaiI1i:i.:i.:i'*..is
based on 21 proper appreciation Of1'.1'1<:', evidence
1 find no legal infirmity in the
Courts below. 111 my opinion, no
law arises for determinatiori :11.4_thisA"s_s'C–:md
ground to admit. the appeal.
dismissed.
hkh /Ata