Judgment :- Defendants 1 to 3, who lost in both the courts below, are the appellants. 2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaring his title to the suit property marked A B C D A shown in green colour in the rough plan and also for permanent injunction. Originally the suit property and other properties were purchased by the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff's brother under a registered sale deed dated 15.03.1958 and they took possession of the same. They constructed pucca stone revetment on the border of their land purchased. They have also planted and raised silver oak trees, orange trees, vagai trees, jackfruit trees, pepper and cardamum plants and also coffee plants. They spent about Rs.5000/= even as early as 1958 and planted the said trees. They are now more than 24 years old. Subsequently, in the partition that took place between the plaintiff's father and brother, the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff's father. Ever since the partition, the plaintiff's father became the absolute owner of the property and he died recently leaving his two sons to succeed to his estate. The plaintiff and his brother along with other sisters entered into a partition on 09.05.1982 and the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff. Thus, from 07.05.1982 onwards the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property and paying kist. Though the sale deed 15.03.1958 and further subsequent documents relating to the suit property describe the extent as 2.58 acres, the previous title holders of the suit property and the plaintiff's family members were in actual possession and enjoyment of the entire land within these boundaries. They are in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the lands within the boundaries described. Thus, by long continuous and uninterrupted possession, the plaintiff had also perfected title by adverse possession. The defendant are third parties and they have nothing to do with the suit property. They are in possession and enjoyment of the lands in S.No.9 situated on the west of the suit property. There is a pucca stone revetment constructed by the plaintiff's father about 24 years back and it is marked as A B in the rough plan. Even if the defendants have any right, they have lost the same. The defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property and hence the suit. There is a pucca stone revetment constructed by the plaintiff's father about 24 years back and it is marked as A B in the rough plan. Even if the defendants have any right, they have lost the same. The defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property and hence the suit. The defendants admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of S.No.10 measuring 2.58 acres only. It is incorrect to state that the plaintiff's father and brother constructed a stone revetment on the border of the property. There is no stone revetment on the western side of S.No.10 belonging to the plaintiff. No doubt, there are trees in S.No.10 and they are not 24 years old. The plaintiff is entitled to only 2.58 acres and nothing more. These defendants own lands on the west of S.No.10. The defendants are the owners of S.No.9/1 and 9/2. These defendants and their father have been in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid survey numbers. The stone revetment is not the dividing line of the properties of the parties. The plaintiff had no right in any portion of S.No.9/1 and 9/2. The plaintiff and his predecessors have not prescribed the title by adverse possession. The defendants have filed a suit against the plaintiff and his brother for declaration of their rights to S.No.9/1 and 9/2 and the trees. After knowing the suit in O.S.No.914 of 1983 and the interim injunction order, without receiving the summons the plaintiff has filed the suit. The defendants also filed an additional written statement alleging the removal of the fence and survey stones. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of stone revetment or any portion west of S.No.10. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief. The trial court framed 4 issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-23 were marked. The report and plan filed by the Commissioner were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2. The trial court decreed the suit and aggrieved against this, the defendants preferred A.S.No.23 of 1989 on the file of Additional District Court, Salem and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the present second appeal. 3. The trial court decreed the suit and aggrieved against this, the defendants preferred A.S.No.23 of 1989 on the file of Additional District Court, Salem and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the present second appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the substantial question of law as Was not the lower appellate court in error in resting its conclusion solely on the ex parte Commissioner's report without adverting to the oral evidence tendered by the witnesses ? 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The plaintiff filed the suit against the appellants/defendants for declaring his title to the suit property marked as A B C D A and washed in green colour in the rough plan and for permanent injunction. It is admitted that the property of the plaintiff is in Survey No.10, whereas the properties of the appellants are in Survey No.9/1 and 9/2 situated on the west of S.No.10. There is a stone revetment from point A to B and according to the plaintiff, it is the dividing line between S.No.9 and 10 and the appellants have no right whatsoever further east of the line A B. But the appellants contended that there was a fence 15 feet away east of point A B and it was destroyed prior to the filing of the suit and the plaintiff had also taken out an ex parte commission. 6. It is admitted that the contention of the appellants/defendants was rejected by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the courts below erred in relying of Exs.C-1 and C-2, which was made in pursuance of an ex parte order and in the absence of the defendants. The courts below also failed to appreciate that this Court in CRP No.4915 of 1983 have observed that the Commissioner should inspect both the properties belonging to the parties. The plaintiff has not come forward with any positive evidence to prove his case. For arriving at a correct decision, proper measurements of both survey numbers is a must and the properties ought to have been located by the Commissioner with the help of a Surveyor based upon the respective title deeds. The plaintiff has not come forward with any positive evidence to prove his case. For arriving at a correct decision, proper measurements of both survey numbers is a must and the properties ought to have been located by the Commissioner with the help of a Surveyor based upon the respective title deeds. The courts below have shut out the best possible evidence in spite of the best efforts of the appellants. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that in spite of the direction given by this Court in the civil revision petition, the trial court has not appointed a Commissioner to locate S.No.9 and 10 with reference to the title deeds. It is admitted that the respondent/plaintiff after filing the suit, filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make a local inspection of the property to note down the existing trees, crops, their age, AB and BC stone revetment and the age, the crops in the defendants' land and their age, other physical features pointed out to him. The Commissioner had visited the property on 26.06.1983 and the defendants refused to take notice. It is seen from the report of the Commissioner dated 30.06.1983 that the length of the stone revetment from point A to F is about 100 feet and height of the stone revetment is 2-1/2 feet. From the appearance of stone revetment, it must be very old and in any event the age will be about more than 20 years. The Commissioner had also noticed adjacent to the stone revetment got Kattu Murungai tree aged about 6 years, one vagai tree aged about 50 years, four silver oak trees aged about 50 years, orange groves aged about 10 years, jack fruit trees aged about 30 years and one Athi tree aged about 50 years on the eastern side. The Commissioner had also noticed coffee plants aged about 20 years, pepper crops aged about 10 years, cardamum crops aged about 5 years and plantain trees in the plaintiff's land. The defendants land is situate on the west of A B stone revetment and there are also silver oak trees aged about 5 years, orange groves aged about 5 years, Eucalyptus trees aged about 3 years and coffee plants aged about 4 years and young plantain trees. The defendants land is situate on the west of A B stone revetment and there are also silver oak trees aged about 5 years, orange groves aged about 5 years, Eucalyptus trees aged about 3 years and coffee plants aged about 4 years and young plantain trees. The physical features pointed out by the Commissioner clearly indicate that there are very old trees of more than 30 years and 50 years adjacent to the A B stone revetment. 8. It is admitted that the appellants filed I.A.No.1357 of 1983 in the trial court to reissue warrant of commission directing him to make visit of the property after giving notice and to submit a plan relocating S.No.9/1 and 9/2 and 10 with the help of a Taluk Surveyor and other physical features pointed out to him. The trial court after hearing the parties, reissued the commission with the same terms and conditions of the prior order. The parties gave memo of instructions to the Advocate Commissioner. The Commissioner had also sought for clarification from the Court. In fact, the appellants also filed I.A.No.1612 of 1983 on the file of trial court seeking clarification of the order by giving necessary direction to the Advocate Commissioner to locate the aforesaid survey numbers with exact measurements to the Field Measurement Book. I.A.No.1612 of 1983 was dismissed by the trial court on 22.08.1983 and aggrieved against this, the appellants preferred CRP No.1915 of 1983 and it was dismissed even in the admission stage with some observations. The observation made is that the Commissioner, who was appointed by this Court will inspect both the property of the plaintiff and the defendants. Thereafter, the appellants filed I.A.No.897 of 1987 before the trial court to re-issue the commission of warrant for the very same purpose and it was also dismissed on 14.01.1988 and aggrieved against this, no appeal has been filed. But the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the Commissioner's warrant ought to have been re-issued so as to enable him to locate the aforesaid three survey numbers with the help of a qualified Surveyor with reference to the title deeds. But the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the Commissioner's warrant ought to have been re-issued so as to enable him to locate the aforesaid three survey numbers with the help of a qualified Surveyor with reference to the title deeds. It appears that in the civil revision petition, a representation was made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the order was passed by the trial court to the Commissioner only to measure the plaintiff's property and not the property under the occupation of the defendants. This representation is not a proper and correct one. However, even in the order passed in the civil revision petition, there is nothing to show that the warrant has to be reissued to the Commissioner for the purpose of locating or identifying the property. When that is not the order, now it is too late for the learned counsel for the appellants to contend that the direction given by this Court was not duly complied by the court below. In fact, there is an admission on the part of the appellants themselves in the course of evidence that for want of funds the Commissioner could not be taken again for the purpose of inspection. When the warrant was reissued on the terms and conditions, the appellants have not made use of the same and hence, now they cannot blame that the Commissioner was not appointed to point out certain features. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants also wanted that the matter may be remitted back to the Appellate court for appointing an Advocate Commissioner again to locate survey numbers with reference to the documents. It was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that sufficient opportunity was already given to the appellants. Moreover, the evidence as well as the report filed by the Commissioner clearly indicate that A B stone revetment is the dividing line between the properties of the parties. It has also come out in evidence that the respondent is in possession of the property for more than 25 years and the existence of the trees also probabilised the same. From 1958 onwards, the respondent is in possession of the property. Although the appellants contended as if there was a fence 15 feet east of A B line, it has not been substantiated. From 1958 onwards, the respondent is in possession of the property. Although the appellants contended as if there was a fence 15 feet east of A B line, it has not been substantiated. If the fences were existing and they were destroyed by the respondent, then naturally it would have been seen by the Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the property immediately. In fact, the appellants already filed O.S.No.914 of 1983 against the respondent and even therein, the existence of the stone revetment has not been made mention of. There is also no reference in O.S.No.914 of 1983 as to how much feet away from A B line on the eastern side the fence was there. Both the courts below have rightly accepted the testimony of these witnesses. D.W.1 also admitted that on the west of stone revetment, there are no trees in the 7 acre land and only crops are raised. The trees are admittedly located on the east of A B line. There is a clear finding by the courts below that the stone revetment at point A and B is the dividing line of the property of the parties. I am of the view that the respondent had positively established that he continued to enjoy the property on the east of A B stone revetment for more than 25 years. The appellants have failed to establish that they have got any right, title and interest beyond A B line on the eastern side. In view of the concurrent finding of the courts below on a fact in issue and there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law, no interference is called for. 10. For the reasons stated above, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.