ORDER 1. The appellant K.R. Ramasamy purchased a property from P.A.P.K.Alagarsamy, who was son of Kuppusamy, on 16.09.1985. He purchased an area of 1253 Sq.ft. from Survery Nos. 156, 109(Part) and 121(Part). Finding an encroachment on the property, he sued the defendants for removal of the encroachment. That suit was dismissed by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, which found that there was a confusion about the survey Nos., which K.R.Ramasami had purchased and that the defendants property could not clearly be said to be at the survey Nos. which he had purchased. The suit was accordingly, dismissed. Appeal filed by K.R. Ramasami was dismissed by the High Court. Against that judgment and order passed by the High Court, the present appeal is preferred. 2. It is clear from the sale deed that property was purchased by K.R.Ramasami from Survey Nos. 156, 109(Part) and 121(Part) admeasuring 1253 Sq. ft. Having purchased this property, what was necessary to be seen is whether the portion allegedly encroached upon by the defandants was part of these survey Nos. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out a Commissioner's report dated, 23.11.1990 which clearly suggests that (a) respondents 1 to 3 are residing in a hut which is in new Survey No. 125/3B2 which corresponds to old survey No. 109/B1 and 121(part); (b) respondents 4 and 5 are occupying survey No. 125/3B2 which corresponds to old survey No. 109/B1(part) and 121(part) and further in a portion which is part of 124/2B which corresponds to old survey No. 156(Part). 4. From the above, it is clear that respondents are residing in survey Nos. purchased by K.R.Ramasami from P.A.P.K.Alagarsamy, i.e, Survey Nos. 156, 109(part)and 121(part). If the High Court had adverted to the Commissioner's report, it could have avoided the confusion, but it did not. Normally this Court would not enter into area which involves a dispute on facts. However, the finding of fact about identity of the properties is arrived at by not taking into account relevant material, that is Commissioner's report, which discloses the identity of the properties. We therefore, find that the finding is vitiated and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 5. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. We therefore, find that the finding is vitiated and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 5. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court may decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, not later than one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.