JUDGMENT C.V. Karthikeyan, J. The plaintiff, Nambi Nachiyarammal in O.S.No.1014 of 1982 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, had filed the said suit against R.Perumal Naidu, the defendant, for declaration of title of a wall measuring 7 feet and to a height of 13 feet to the west of plaintiff's property and to the east and north of the defendant's property and for direction that the defendant should not put up any construction over the said wall. 2. The said suit came up for consideration on 25.01.1991 and the learned Additional District Munsif had dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, then, filed A.S.No.47 of 1991 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. The Additional Subordinate Judge, by judgment dated 03.10.1994, dismissed the appeal. Challenging that judgment, the plaintiff had filed the present second appeal. 3. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in disposing of the appeal without framing points for consideration as required under Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure especially when the trial Court framed issues, objection was taken to the framing of issues by the trial Court in the memorandum of first appeal? (b) Whether the Courts below were right that all the four walls are common walls when there was no dispute raised by the respondent with regard to other three walls?" 4. Pending appeal, the appellant died and K.Nagalakshmi, who was her adopted daughter, had been brought on record, by order dated 13.08.2018 in C.M.P(MD)No.5124 of 2018. The defendant R.Perumal Naidu also died and his legal heirs were brought on record as 2nd to 6th respondents. The second respondent, P.Ramu Ammal, who was the wife of R.Perumal Naidu, also died but her legal heirs were already on record as 3rd to 6th respondents. O.S.No.1014 of 1982 (Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli):- 5. The plaintiff had purchased the property, bearing D.No.9A- Koorathalwar Street, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli by sale deed dated 20.09.1972 from Achiammal, w/o. Kumarasamy Naidu. She claimed to be in possession of the said property. The disputed wall is 7 feet wall with a height of 13 feet. This was situated on the extreme south and ran north to south to the opposite of the defendant's property. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had a property to an extent of 7 feet to the north of his property. The disputed wall is 7 feet wall with a height of 13 feet. This was situated on the extreme south and ran north to south to the opposite of the defendant's property. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had a property to an extent of 7 feet to the north of his property. The survey number for the plaintiff's property was wrongly given and thereafter, on 10.03.1975 rectification was effected on the deed. A relinquishment deed was entered into on 26.02.1975. In the document, the survey number was wrongly given and a rectification of date was effected on 14.03.1975. 6. The plaintiff claimed that she exclusively used the said wall. The property on the other side belongs to the defendant. It was stated that the defendant attempted to put up a construction over the said wall. Claiming that the defendant had no right to put up any construction over the wall and the said wall was the exclusive property of the plaintiff, the suit had been filed seeking declaration and injunction. 7. The defendant in his written statement, stated that the description of the property given by the plaintiff is wrong. It was stated that the plaintiff's property was to the north of common wall. The measurements given were also wrong. It was stated that the measurement of the southern boundary of the plaint schedule measurement was wrongly given. The northern boundary measurement was also wrongly given. It was stated that the measurement of the wall was wrong. It was stated that the wall belonged to the defendant. It was stated that the defendant had land to the east of the said wall. It is stated that the defendant had put up toilet and latrine in the said place. The defendant claimed that he was the exclusive owner of the said wall and that the plaintiff cannot claim any declaration with respect to the said wall. It was stated that the suit should be dismissed. 8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, framed the following issues for trial: "(a) Whether the claim of the defendant that the boundaries of the plaintiff term had been wrongly given is correct? (b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration with respect to her property? (c) Whether the wall had been properly described in the plaint? (b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration with respect to her property? (c) Whether the wall had been properly described in the plaint? (d) Whether the claim of the defendant that the plaintiff is not the owner of the four walls of her property is correct? (e) Whether the defendant has a right to put up construction over the said wall? (f) To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled?" 9. During trial, the brother of the plaintiff, Kumarasamy, was examined as PW-1. The defendant, Perumalsamy Nadu was examined as DW-1. The plaintiff marked Ex-A1 to Ex-A5. Ex-A1 is the sale deed, dated 20.09.1972 in favour of the plaintiff. Ex-A2, dated 10.03.1975, is the rectification deed. Ex-A3, dated 26.02.1975 is the relinquishment deed. Ex-A4 is a rough sketch of the suit property and Ex-A5, dated 14.03.1975 is the rectification deed of Ex-A3. The defendant did not mark any document. During trial, Ex-C1, the report of the Advocate Commissioner and Ex-C2, the rough sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner and Ex-C3 sketch prepared by the surveyor were also marked. 10. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 25.01.1991, the learned Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, held that the disputed wall was a common wall and not exclusive wall of the plaintiff. It was also found that in Ex-A1, the town survey number was given as 421. The suit property was T.S.No.423. This was rectified in Ex-A2 to T.S.No.428. Ex- A3 is the relinquishment deed. In the said deed, it had been stated that the defendant was the owner of the latrine and there was a common wall and that the defendant would not object to the plaintiff white washing the said wall from the side of the defendant's property. The rectification made to this document was by Ex-A5. It was observed that the plaintiff had instituted the suit claiming that the wall is her exclusive wall. The learned Judge found that such a declaration cannot be granted. He also held that the plaintiff had not established that the said wall was her exclusive wall. Consequently, the relief of declaration was negatived and the suit was dismissed. A.S.No.47 of 1991 (Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli):- 11. The plaintiff, then, filed A.S.No.47 of 1991 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. By judgment dated 03.10.1994, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge re-examined the evidence on record. Consequently, the relief of declaration was negatived and the suit was dismissed. A.S.No.47 of 1991 (Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli):- 11. The plaintiff, then, filed A.S.No.47 of 1991 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli. By judgment dated 03.10.1994, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge re-examined the evidence on record. It had been argued that the learned Subordinate Judge had not framed points for determination as required under Order 47 Rule 31 of CPC. This was one of the substantial questions of law, which had been framed at the time of admission of this second appeal. However, it is to be seen that the learned Subordinate Judge had extracted the entire pleadings and the one point which had been framed for determination was whether the plaintiff had made out reasonable grounds to allow the appeal. I hold that the parties knew the actual issues and aspects over which they were arguing the appeal. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge also answered the actual issues, which had been raised in the pleadings to the appeal. The learned Judge also framed for determination the point whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is against law. The learned Judge found that the plaintiff had not established that she was the exclusive owner of the disputed wall. It was found that the wall was held in common by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The learned Judge didnot accept the contention that the wall was the exclusive wall of the plaintiff. Consequently, the learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the views of the learned Additional District Munsif and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. S.A.No.137 of 1995:- 12. The plaintiff, then, field the present appeal. As stated above, both the plaintiff and the defendant have died and their legal heirs were brought on record. 13. For sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as plaintiff and the defendant. 14. To more full understanding the issues raised in the suit, Ex-C2 is reproduced as follows: IMAGE 15. In the sketch, marked as Ex-C2, the plaintiff's house had been given and the disputed wall is AB. The portion marked DC also belongs to the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the Wall, 'AB' is her exclusive wall. The defendant claims that it is a common wall. In the sketch, marked as Ex-C2, the plaintiff's house had been given and the disputed wall is AB. The portion marked DC also belongs to the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the Wall, 'AB' is her exclusive wall. The defendant claims that it is a common wall. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that 'AB' is a common wall and that the declaration sought cannot be granted to the plaintiff. In Ex-A3, dated 26.02.1975, the defendant had stated that xxx xxx 16. The defendant had covenanted that he would not object to the plaintiff white washing her wall on the northern of his property by entering into his portion. The wall, it is mentioned in Ex-A3, is the wall to the open yard and the plaintiff's house in the sketch given above. To maintain that, the plaintiff has to enter into the defendant's property and the defendant stated that he would not object to the plaintiff entering into his property for such purpose. It has been specifically stated that the wall has been described as or common wall. To white wash that wall, the defendant stated that he had no objection for the plaintiff entering into 'C' portion mentioned above. It must reiterated that the portion marked 'C' belongs to the defendant. PW-1 is the brother of plaintiff. He stated that apart from the documents filed in Court, there were no other documents to show that the wall exclusively belonged to the plaintiff. Along with Ex-A3, Ex-A4 was also annexed. Ex-A4 is as follows: IMAGE 17. The portion marked as Red is the disputed wall. The portion to the left of west of the said wall belongs to the defendant. Ex-A3 granted permission to the plaintiff to enter into the defendant's property to white wash the common wall, marked as Red. The Red marked wall has been described as a common wall. All these facts have been established concurrently by both the Courts below. It would be highly inappropriate to re-examine or re-open the findings on facts. 18. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on (Ravish and Another vs R.Bharathi, 2017 SAR(Civ) 468), wherein, if there is a dispute regarding the location on a site, then, the proper procedure to be adopted would be to appoint a Commissioner to get a report regarding the location of the disputed site. 18. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on (Ravish and Another vs R.Bharathi, 2017 SAR(Civ) 468), wherein, if there is a dispute regarding the location on a site, then, the proper procedure to be adopted would be to appoint a Commissioner to get a report regarding the location of the disputed site. In the present case, the description of the wall had not been clearly given in the plaint. Ex-C3 is the sketch prepared by a surveyor by the Town Surveyor Inspector, Palayamkottai. Consequently, there is no dispute over the location of the wall. It is located between the plaintiff and the defendant's property. It measures 7 feet in length. Ex-A3 and Ex-A5 are registered documents, wherein, the defendant had permitted the plaintiff to enter into his property to white wash the wall and the wall had been described as common wall. 19. The substantial question of law, which had been framed whether the disputed wall is a common wall. It has been established by evidence that it is a common wall. A reading of the judgment of both the Courts below reveal that they have only mentioned that the dispute wall is a common wall. The second substantial question of law is answered that both the Courts below have given a finding regarding over the disputed wall. 20. In view all the above reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli in A.S.No.47 of 1991, dated 03.10.1994 and the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, dated 25.01.1991, in O.S.No.1014 of 1982, are both confirmed.