Judgment :- 1. This Second Appeal is focused by the LRs. of the original third defendant/V.K. Ramanathan, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 212. 2005 passed in A.S. No.47 of 2005 by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Courts namely, Principal District Munsifs Court, Namakkal, in O.S. No.171 of 2004. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Trial Court. 2. A summation and summarization of relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus: The plaintiff/first respondent filed the Suit as against the defendants for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The defendants entered appearance and D3 filed the written statement resisting the Suit. 3. The Trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Exs.A1 and A13 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 4. Ultimately, the Trial Court decreed the Suit, as against which the Appeal was filed by D3 (Rep. by his LRs.), for nothing but to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgment and decrees of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal is sought to be filed on various grounds and also by suggesting some substantial questions of law. 5. Heard both sides. 6. A plain poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers including the copies of the judgments of both the Courts below and also consideration of the arguments on either side would demonstrate and display that the plaintiff filed the Suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. In both the Courts below she succeeded. Whereas, the third defendant filed the First Appeal challenging and animadverting upon the first item having been directed to be delivered possession by D3 in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Suit. 7. In both the Courts below she succeeded. Whereas, the third defendant filed the First Appeal challenging and animadverting upon the first item having been directed to be delivered possession by D3 in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Suit. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would advance his argument to the effect that originally a vast extent of the property belonged to a Trust and from the Trust, Christa Merry the vendor of D3 purchased the property and from her, D3 purchased the property under Ex.B1 and as such, as per Ex.B1, the defendant is entitled to enjoy the property; according to D3 (Rep. by his LRs.), Ex.B1 refers to the first item of the suit property; without identifying as to where exactly the property of the plaintiff situates, illegally the plaintiff is trying to encroach into the property covered by Ex.B1. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would succinctly and precisely submit that if the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court with a direction to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the first item of the suit property and locate the same, then the entire dispute would come to an end. 8. Whereas, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that out of the two items of suit properties, regarding second item of the suit property is concerned, D3 (Rep. by his LRs.) had no objection and only in respect of first item of the suit property, he filed the Appeal as well as the Second Appeal herein. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court understanding that the plaintiffs vendor as per Ex.A3 purchased the first item of the suit property and the plaintiff purchased it from him as per Ex.A2, held that the plaintiff is entitled to 416 sq.ft. of property in the first item of the suit property, that the defendants unlawfully trespassed in to the suit property, and erected superstructure and that thereby they are in eruption of the suit property. 9. of property in the first item of the suit property, that the defendants unlawfully trespassed in to the suit property, and erected superstructure and that thereby they are in eruption of the suit property. 9. The learned Advocates for both sides drew the attention of this Court to various portions of the judgments of both the Courts below and the impression which I could derive from the perusal of those decisions is to the effect that both the Courts below have not specifically given any finding as to the location of the first item of the suit property. Obviously, no Advocate Commissioner was appointed with the mission to visit the suit property and locates the first item of the suit property with reference to the documents concerned, the entire dispute will come to a stand still. 10. Both sides in unison submitted that there is one other Suit pending in O.S. No.2 of 2003 filed by deceased D3 (Rep. by his LRs.) praying the Court to declare his ownership relating to the property covered under Ex.B1 and also for consequential injunction in the said suit property. The plaintiff/first respondent herein was arrayed as the sole defendant as though the defendant is trying to interefere with that property. It appears an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in that Suit and he also submitted his report with sketch. 11. At this juncture, I would like to point out that it is an injubitable and indisputable fact that the plaintiff is owning land to the east of deceased D3s (Rep. by his LRs. Lakshmi) property. The Suit O.S. No.2 of 2003 which is pending before the Trial Court is based on her document Ex.B1 and in fact, as a corollary, here contention in this Second Appeal is only based on Ex.B1 and as such, the Suits are between the same parties. It is therefore inferable and understandable that on the strength 6f Ex.B1 the appellants are arguing this Appeal. Whereas the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff herein on the strength of Ex.A2 resists the Appeal and defends the Suit in O.S. No.2 of 2003. In that view of the matter, both the Suits are in one way or other having close nexus between the two. A decision in one will affect the other. Whereas the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff herein on the strength of Ex.A2 resists the Appeal and defends the Suit in O.S. No.2 of 2003. In that view of the matter, both the Suits are in one way or other having close nexus between the two. A decision in one will affect the other. Hence in such a case, in view of the fact that already an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed in the Suit O.S.No.2 of 2003, it would be better if the matter is remitted back to the same Trial Court with the following mandate in respect of item No.1 alone herein. The Trial Court on receipt of the records shall appoint preferably the very same Advocate Commissioner, who already visited the suit property and submitted a report in respect of O.S. No.2 of 2003, to visit the suit property in connection with this case with the help of Inspector of Surveyors and locate the first item of the suit property herein with specific reference to Ex.A2 to the extent of 416 sq.ft in commensurate with Ex.A3 and also find out the physical features therein and whereupon, the Trial Court after hearing both sides based on evidence already recorded and if any more evidence to be adduced by both sides, dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. It is quite obvious that D3/appellant (Rep. by his LRs.) herein relies on Ex.B1, whereas the first respondent/plaintiff herein relies on Exs.A2 and A3 and accordingly, neither of them is entitled to claim each others property and they should be satisfied with their respective areas as highlighted supra and accordingly the Trial Court is expected to render the judgment in this case as well as in the other case, by way of common judgment. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 6. 2009. 13. Regarding item No.2 of the suit property herein, the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court are not under challenge and as prayed by the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff, he is at liberty to file E.P. and take delivery of possession. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is disposed of. No costs.