held that the boundaries indicated in the plairtt schedule did__ not
tally with the original grant tmcle in favour of the ztppell-;.ii’it.aitti’_
accordingly has allowed the appeal. It is this liiiiitetll “ztS.PecVlt-ll(‘):it. V’
which the appeal has been allowed.
2. Since there. is no 1°et’eiien;CeV_tt)
appellate court and Wl]l(.’l1v’.v’=/..(.?Lll(l gileztitlliy_e$<;3laintllie»ldisel'ept1itcy
that was sought to be highlightetlll lor the lower
appellate court V with particular
rei'e.a'eiice tn'; V in the bountlaries.
Especially by the very defendants
to the gi’ai’tt’i1ei1ig i”riacle’.i’ri..f’;i’\.si)tii’ of the plaintiffs at Parag1’apli–l
of the:«.§.wi’itten statemepnt. Hence, the only controversy was with
i”ega1″d.. to._Vt’ne’«val’ie.ged discrepancy in the boundaries._ which is
SL1l.l’lC.lt;3ll{ly e’:iplti’ii1ed.
2 ” Acc(_)i’din;zly, the appeal is allowed. Tlie. judgment and
‘ de-;;i’ee of the lower appellate court is set aside. The matter is