Judgment :- SRINIVASAN, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the predecessor-in-title of the present appellants by name Vaidyalingam. He has prayed for declaration of his title to the suit property, for recovery of possession, for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove certain constructions and also for preventive injunction restraining them from interfering with his alleged possession. After the dismissal of the suit and during the pendency of the Appeal in the City Civil Court, Madras, the said Vaidyalingam died. The present appellants are his legal representatives. Though Mr. Ranka has filed vakalat for the second respondent, he refused to argue the matter. The circumstances relating to the same have been set out by us in detail in our order passed yesterday in CMP. Nos. 14941 to 14943 of 1994. 2. The plaintiff claimed title to the property under an assignment from the first respondent in this appeal, who was the first defendant in the suit made in 1961. The first respondent prepared a lay-out and plotted out a large area out of which plot No. 80 as it was then, was allotted to the plaintiff. Subsequently that plot was re-numbered as plot No. 63. The second respondent was allotted plot No. 62-A in 1965. That plot was originally reserved for a temple and a reading room. Later the society decided to allot both the plots reserved for temple and reading room and consequently they were allotted as plot No. 62-A to the Second respondent. South of Plot No. 62-A, Plot No. 62 was situated. It was allotted to one Basha. Though an assignment deed was executed in favour of the second respondent, the measurements contained therein in were found by him to be incorrect and possession was not handed over to him. He filed A.R.C. No. 147/68-69 before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 53 of 1961. An award was passed upholding his contention that he was entitled to a larger measurement than what was shown in the assignment deed as per the original lay-out. In fact, it was found that he was allotted both the plots reserved for temple and reading room. That award is marked as Ex. B3 in the present proceedings. An award was passed upholding his contention that he was entitled to a larger measurement than what was shown in the assignment deed as per the original lay-out. In fact, it was found that he was allotted both the plots reserved for temple and reading room. That award is marked as Ex. B3 in the present proceedings. There was an appeal against the award by the first respondent under Section 95 to the Tribunal in C.A. 11 of 1969. That appeal was dismissed on 19.6.1970. Even thereafter possession was not handed over to the second respondent. He filed proceedings to execute the award in EP. No. 349 of 1972. He sought the assistance of a qualified surveyor to demarcate his plot and effect delivery of possession. The 10th Assistant Judge. City Civil Court, Madras, granted the prayer and accordingly the Inspector of Survey, Deputy Surveyor and the Chain-man proceeded to demarcate the plot No. 62-A in accordance with the approved lay-out. Delivery was directed to be given to him. But in February, 1972 the plaintiff in the present proceeding had filed in A.R.C. No. 54/72-73 for a direction to demarcate the plot No. 63 in accordance with the approved lay-out. According to him, the second respondent was trying to disturb his possession and claim a portion of the plot allotted to him as his. He impleaded the second respondent herein as a party to the said proceeding. The records before the executing Court relating to the measurement of the plot No. 62-A were also filed before the Deputy Registrar in A.R.C. No. 54/72-73. After considering all the records an award was passed directing demarcation of plot No. 63 in accordance with the approved lay-out. But, it was clearly, stated that the same should be without disturbing the rights of the second respondent herein as granted in A.R.C. No. 147/68-69H and C.A. No. 11 of 1969. That award was passed on 29.3.1974. There was an appeal by the plaintiff against the same in C.A. No. 10 of 1974. That was dismissed on 21.8.1975. When the second respondent proceeded to execute the decree in his favour and take possession, obstruction was caused not only by the plaintiff in this suit but also by Badsha who was the allottee of plot No. 62. The second respondent, therefore, filed E.A. No. 6645 of 1972 for removal of obstruction-. That was dismissed on 21.8.1975. When the second respondent proceeded to execute the decree in his favour and take possession, obstruction was caused not only by the plaintiff in this suit but also by Badsha who was the allottee of plot No. 62. The second respondent, therefore, filed E.A. No. 6645 of 1972 for removal of obstruction-. The 10th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras recorded evidence in the proceeding. Four witnesses were examined on the side of the second respondent and five witnesses were examined on the side of the obstructions. The Special Officer of the first respondent was examined as R.W. 4 on the side of the obstructors. One of the witnesses was the Inspector of Survey. The original lay out sanctioned by the Director of Town Planning was also marked as exhibit in the case. As many as 29 exhibits were filed by the decree-holder and 17 exhibits were filed by the obstructors. Ex. P1 was the blue print of the lay-out plan while Ex. P. 22 was the lay-out plan in the original. After considering the entire evidence on record, the 10th Assistant Judge passed an order holding that the obstructors had no right whatever to prevent the execution of the decree and directed removal of obstruction. The said order has been marked as Ex. B. 15 in the present proceeding. It is worth noticing that in the said order a reference has been made to the fact that Bedsha, the allottee of the Plot No. 62 had filed a Writ Petition in this Court challenging the order made in favour of the second respondent in A.R.C. No. 147/68-69 and C.A. No. 11 of 1969 and that the said writ petition was dismissed granting certain time to the said Badsha to establish his rights within the particular period. The said Bad she filed a suit thereafter in O.S. No. 646 of 1973. He prayed for interim injunction. It was refused. He filed an appeal, which was dismissed. He withdrew the suit and there ended the obstruction caused by the said Badsha through the other proceedings. In the execution proceedings his obstruction was directed to be removed by the order in Ex. B15. 3. The order was challenged by the first respondent in CRP. No. 668 of 1975. The same was dismissed on 11.3.1977. He withdrew the suit and there ended the obstruction caused by the said Badsha through the other proceedings. In the execution proceedings his obstruction was directed to be removed by the order in Ex. B15. 3. The order was challenged by the first respondent in CRP. No. 668 of 1975. The same was dismissed on 11.3.1977. However, the learned Judge while dismissing the civil revision petition holding that there was no infirmity in the order of removal of obstruction, granted liberty to the first respondent society to prepare a lay-out without affecting the rights of the second respondent herein, who had taken possession in working out the order in execution. 4. The plaintiff filed the present suit claiming title to an extent of 800 s. ft. which is part of plot No. 62-A allotted to the second respondent. According to the plaintiff, that is part of plot No. 63 allotted to him and it has been encroached upon by the second respondent by virtue of the order in A.R.C. No. 147/68-69. The plaintiff also claimed the other reliefs which we have referred to already. The suit was dismissed in the first instance by the trial Court on merits. An appeal was filed in A.S. No. 176 of 1981. That appeal was allowed by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and the suit was remanded for fresh trial. After remand the suit was once again dismissed on merits. It is the said dismissal of the suit which is challenged in the present appeal. 5. This appeal was filed in the city Civil Court, Madras. By our order dated 15.9.1994 in W.P. No. 14292 of 1994 we withdrew the appeal to the file of this Court for the reasons stated in detail in the said order. This appeal after coming to this court is numbered as A.S. No. 1005 of 1994. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that though the award in his favour in A.R.C. No. 54/72-73 is made subject to the rights of the second respondent as recognised in A.R.C. No. 147/68-69 the plots 62-A and 63 were not actually measured and demarcated and unless that is done, it cannot be found that the second respondent is the owner of the disputed extent of 800 s. ft. According to the appellants, the second respondent has in the guise of executing the decree in his favour encroached upon 800 s. ft. of plot No. 63. It is further contended that the plaintiff was an earlier allottee and the allotment made to the second respondent was much later. It is argued that the evidence of P.W. 2, who is a Town Surveyor in Puraswalkam, Perambur Officer, clearly proves that the appellants are in occupation of a much lesser extent than what was allotted to the plaintiff and the second respondent is in occupation of a larger extent than what was allotted to him. According to the appellants, an extent of 3604 s. ft. was allotted as plot No. 63, and as at present the property in possession of the appellants measures only 23804 s. ft. It is, therefore, contended that the balance of 800 s. ft. which is claimed to be part of plot No. 62-A belongs to the appellants. 7. We are unable to accept these contentions urged by learned counsel for the appellants. It must be pointed out in the first instance that the deed of assignment in favour of the plaintiff does not contain the measurements of the plot allotted to the plaintiff. The description of the property gives only the number of the plot and the approximate total area thereof. Ex. A1 is the site assignment deed in favour of the plaintiff. According to the schedule, plot No. 63 bounded on the north by plot No. 64, on the south by open space for Societys officers, on the east by Baraka Road and on the west by plot Nos. 46 and 48 containing ad measurement of 3604 s. ft. or thereabouts. There is no explanation as to why the measurements of the plot are not mentioned in that document even though it is contended vehemently that the lay-out plan contained the measurements on the basis of 1? = 66?. Ex. A2 is the deed of conveyance dated 23.1.1963 in favour of the plaintiff. The description of the property in the schedule is the same as that was found in the assignment deed as referred to above. Ex. A3 is the plan filed by the plaintiff, which is supposed to be a plan of the entire lay-out, but, that does not disclose the plot which was allotted to the parties herein. The description of the property in the schedule is the same as that was found in the assignment deed as referred to above. Ex. A3 is the plan filed by the plaintiff, which is supposed to be a plan of the entire lay-out, but, that does not disclose the plot which was allotted to the parties herein. It is not possible to find out from Ex. A3, which is plot No. 63 and which is plot No. 62-A. 8. On the other hand, Ex. B3 is the award passed in favour of the second respondent in A.R.C. No. 147/68-69. A perusal of it shows that the second respondent claimed as per the lay-out an extent of 114 feet north to south on the western side and 130 feet on the eastern side and 40 feet east to west on the northern side and 16 feet east to west on the southern side. That case was upheld by the Arbitrator, the Co-operative Sub-Registrar after considering the relevant documents including the approved lay out plan. On that finding, the directed the society to demarcate the plot No. 62-A which was assigned to the second respondent. We have already referred to the fact that the plot No. 62- A comprised two plots originally reserved for a temple and a reading room. As per the original measurements for those two properties P.W. 2 the Town Surveyor examined by the plaintiff in these proceedings has given evidence stating that the north-south measurement for both the temple and the reading room together was 113 feet. That evidence clearly supports the claim of the second respondent made in A.R.C. No. 147/68-69 which was upheld by the Arbitrator. It was that decree which was sought to be executed by the second respondent in the subsequent proceedings as pointed out above. As far as the appellants are concerned, the award in their favour is expressly made subject to the award in favour of the second respondent. Hence in the execution of the decree by the second respondent there cannot be any obstruction at the instance of the appellants preventing delivery of possession of the property which was found to be that of the second respondent in the award. 9. Hence in the execution of the decree by the second respondent there cannot be any obstruction at the instance of the appellants preventing delivery of possession of the property which was found to be that of the second respondent in the award. 9. Reliance is placed by the appellants counsel on the evidence given by P.W. 2 in chief examination that the measurements of the plots are not mentioned specifically in the lay-out plans. The lay-out plans are marked as Exs. B33 to B35 in the present proceedings. No doubt, measurements are not separately mentioned therein with regard to the suit plot but the scale is mentioned in the plan as 1?= 66?. It is only on that basis P.W. 2 himself has given evidence by measuring the plan and stating the measurement of the plot. On that footing P.W. 2 has stated that plot No. 80 which was originally allotted to the plaintiff measured about 3315 s. ft. Even that does not go in accord with the assignment deed or the claim of the plaintiff for 3604 S. ft. We cannot accept the evidence given by P.W. 2 in the chief-examination which is based only on the measurement of the plan as such and not the measurement of the land particularly when he has admitted even as per the original lay-out plan the total measurement for temple and reading room which was allotted as plot No. 62-A to the second respondent was 113 feet north to south (sic?). 10. The trial Court has found that the measurements found in the plans Exs. B33 to B35 and the plan Ex. B8 prepared at the time of execution by the Surveyor who measured the plot actually at that time are not much different from each other. Learned counsel submits that there is a vast difference between the two plans. According to him, Ex. B8 cannot be accepted as it was a measurement taken at the time of execution. There is no merit in this contention. It is seen from the records that at the time of execution proceedings the concerned Survey officials were present and the measurement was taken only by the inspector of Survey. He has also given evidence in the executing court in the proceedings for removal of obstruction. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the contention that Ex. It is seen from the records that at the time of execution proceedings the concerned Survey officials were present and the measurement was taken only by the inspector of Survey. He has also given evidence in the executing court in the proceedings for removal of obstruction. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the contention that Ex. B8 cannot be accepted to be a correct plan. 11. It is argued by learned counsel that the appellants are not bound by the plan in Ex. B8 as they were not parties to the decree in A.R.C. No. 147/68-69. There is no merit in this contention. Even though the appellants or the plaintiff were not parties to the proceedings as such the plaintiff obtained an award in ARC. No. 54/72- 73 which specifically stated that his rights were subject to the rights declared in ARC. No. 147/68-69. Hence the plan Ex. B8 prepared in the course of execution of the said decree is binding on the appellants. 12. The next contention of learned counsel is what is found in the actual possession of the appellants is only 2804 s. ft. and there is a deficit of 800 s. ft. out of the allotment made to them. There is no merit in this contention. If there is any difference between the measurements of the plot actually given to the plaintiff and the measurement as shown in the plan, it is for the appellants to make a claim as against the Society which allotted to them the plot for appropriate reliefs. But as it is found in the above referred proceeding that the rights of the second respondent prevailed over that of the plaintiff in the present case, it is not open to the plaintiff to contend that the second respondent is having an excess extent. It is only after demarcating Plot No. 62-A as per A.R.C. No. 147/68-69 which has been above in E.P. 349/72 under Ex. B-8, Plot No. 63 can be identified as has been allotted to the plaintiff. 13. It is only after demarcating Plot No. 62-A as per A.R.C. No. 147/68-69 which has been above in E.P. 349/72 under Ex. B-8, Plot No. 63 can be identified as has been allotted to the plaintiff. 13. The next contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the order of remand made in A.S. No. 176 of 1981 directed the plot to be demarcated by proper measurements and according to him the trial Court has failed to do so and has also dismissed the application filed for appointment of a Surveyor for measuring the plot, in IA. No. 204 of 1984. A ground is also taken in the memorandum of grounds challenging the order made in IA. No. 204 of 1984. The order of remand itself has been criticised and in fact condemned by this Court in CRP. No. 606 of 1983. That revision was filed against an order dated 31.3.1983 in IA. No. 1161 of 1982 passed by the trial Court in the present suit appointing a commissioner for measuring plots 62.62-A a nd 63. While allowing the revision petition holding that there was no necessity to appoint a commissioner to measure the three plots as the measurements had already been taken and formed part of the records, the Court said:— “As a matter of fact, the appellate Court itself ought to have disposed of the matter, without remanding it, when what was required was to send for the plot map and to compare with lay out plan, for finding out whether the averments and claims now made are such that the award, as passed, cannot be implemented. This Court considers that the order of remand itself was uncalled for, but, since it has become final and binding on the parties, the trial Court will have to dispose of the suit within 3 weeks of the receipt of the copy of this order, because, an identical suit filed by Basha had been already dismissed, and by instituting further proceedings, the rights of the petitioner are being defeated endlessly. Hence such expeditious disposal is called for. Hence the revision petition is allowed with costs to be paid by first respondent”. In the face of the said order it is not open to the appellants to place any reliance on the order of remand made in A.S. No. 176 of 1981. 14. Hence such expeditious disposal is called for. Hence the revision petition is allowed with costs to be paid by first respondent”. In the face of the said order it is not open to the appellants to place any reliance on the order of remand made in A.S. No. 176 of 1981. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants took us through the entire deposition of P.W. 12 and submitted that the said deposition supports the case of the appellants in full. We are not able to accept the same. We have already pointed out that the evidence given by P.W. 2 in the cross-examination really supports the case of the second respondent and not that of the appellants. 15. Apart from the materials already referred to above, the appellants have no other record to show that they are entitled to 800 s. ft. out of the plot which has been delivered to the second respondent in execution of the decree obtained by him. As stated already, plot No. 62-A was measured by the Surveyor and delivered to the second respondent in execution of the decree obtained by him. The appellants cannot claim any right to any portion of the said plot. The trial Court has rightly expressed the view that the appellants have not made out their claim of title to the suit property. Hence, the appellants are not entitled to a declaration as prayed for by them to the extent of 800 S. ft. and marked in the plan attached to the plaint. Nor are they entitled to get delivery of possession of the same from the defendants. Consequently they are not entitled to get mandatory injunction as prayed for by them directing the second respondent herein to remove the walls put up by him in the plot which has been delivered to him. It goes without saying that they are not entitled to any injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their alleged enjoyment of the said portion of the property. 16. During the pendency of the appeal, in CMP. No. 209 of 1984 the City Civil Court, Madras passed an order of injunction restraining the second respondent from building on the suit property pending disposal of the appeal. That petition has been re-numbered in this Court as CMP. No. 14800 of 1994. 16. During the pendency of the appeal, in CMP. No. 209 of 1984 the City Civil Court, Madras passed an order of injunction restraining the second respondent from building on the suit property pending disposal of the appeal. That petition has been re-numbered in this Court as CMP. No. 14800 of 1994. As we have now found that the appellants have no title whatever to any portion of plot No. 62-A which has been delivered to the second respondent the appellants are not entitled to have the benefit of any injunction as against the second respondent. The interim injunction granted in the said petition is vacated. The petition is hereby dismissed. 17. We also take note of the fact that the appellants filed E.A. No. 2288 of 1992 E.P. No. 2840 of 1984 on the file of the 10th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The said execution petition was for executing the decree obtained by the plaintiff in ARC. No. 54/72-73. During the pendency of that execution petition the plaintiff filed EA. No. 4663 of 1985 for appointment of a Commissioner to measure his plot viz., plot No. 63 and submit a report together with a sketch. That application was dismissed by the executing court. A revision was filed in this Court in CRP. No. 2453 of 1986. During the pendency of the revision petition, the plaintiff died and the present appellants came on record as his legal representatives. This court allowed the revision petition by order dated 24.4.1991 and set aside the order of the execution Court with the following directions:— “Accordingly, I set aside the order of the Court below and allow E.A. No. 4463/85. However, it is made clear that under the guise of measuring the plot allotted to the deceased first petitioner herein, it is not open to the Commissioner, to be appointed by the executing Court pursuant to this order to take measurements of the plot No. 62A allotted to the second respondent herein. Subject to the above clarification, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The court below will appoint an advocate Commissioner with suitable directions”. 18. Thereafter, the appellants prayed for an order of injunction restraining the second respondent herein from putting up any construction. In that application the City Civil Court, Madras granted an order on 29.4.1992 directing the maintenance of status quo until further orders. The court below will appoint an advocate Commissioner with suitable directions”. 18. Thereafter, the appellants prayed for an order of injunction restraining the second respondent herein from putting up any construction. In that application the City Civil Court, Madras granted an order on 29.4.1992 directing the maintenance of status quo until further orders. It goes without saying that the appellants are not entitled to get any injunction in the proceedings for execution of their decree in E.P. No. 2840 of 1984 restraining the second respondent herein from proceeding with the construction in his plot No. 62-A which was delivered to him by the Court in execution of his decree after obstruction caused by the plaintiff was removed by a specific order. It is certainly open to the appellants to execute the decree obtained in ARC. No. 54/72-73 as against the first respondent-society. But they cannot claim any right to the extent of 800 S. ft. of land which is the subject matter of this suit and which has been found here to be part of plot No. 62-A belonging to the second respondent. 19. In the result, there is no merit whatever in the appeal and it has to fail. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. We are not awarding costs in favour of the second respondent in view of the fact that his counsel refused to take part in the proceedings. C.M.P. No: 14945 of 1994:— 20. This is an application to dismiss the appeal A.S. No. 273 of 1984 (Transfer Appeal No. 1005 of 1994). The application was filed on certain technical grounds. Now that we have dismissed the appeal on merits, this application has become unnecessary and it is dismissed as such. Review Application Nos. 21 and 107 of 1994:— 21. In view of the disposal of the transfer Appeal No. 1005 of 1994, nothing survives in these petitions. They are dismissed as such.