Under challenge is Ext.P11 order passed by the court below. A compromise decree was entered into between the parties by Ext.P3. A compromise decree was put in execution and then it became necessary to identify the boundaries separating the two properties. The Commissioner along with the Surveyor and inspected the property and filed Ext.P3 report. The Commissioner identified the compromise boundary as 'XZ' line shown in Ext.P3. Accepting the same, the court below directed to put up a boundary wall through XZ line.
2. Two contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pointed out that this is second execution petition and it is not maintainable. The second is that, 'XZ' line drawn by the Commissioner is not correct and is not as specified in the compromise decree.
3. Much of the dispute is set at rest by Ext.P7, a judgment of this Court in O.P.No.147 of 2014. In the said O.P, the challenge was against the Commission report and plan, mainly on the ground that the petitioner therein had no opportunity to file his objection and established why that commission report and plan could not be accepted.
4. As regards the first contention that the second E.P.is not maintainable, the issue is covered by Ext.P7 order, wherein this aspect was clearly considered and it was observed that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the second E.P is the continuation of the first E.P. Therefore the second E.P. Is maintainable. In the light of earlier findings, this question does not arise for consideration again.
5. This court thereafter, in the above O.P, set aside the impugned order and directed the execution court to pass fresh orders. It was specifically directed that no fresh commission shall be issued and the only opportunity available to the petitioner is to establish the objection to A3 report and A3(a) plan. It is also directed that the matter should be disposed of within three months from the date of the order.
6. After the matter was returned to the execution court, the objection was considered and found that there is no reason to accept the commission's report and plan. The court below after evaluation of the materials before it came to the conclusion that lines shown as XZ in Ext.P3 is a separative boundary and a compound wall is liable to put up along that line.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that beyond the point 'G', he is not liable to put up the boundary wall as the property does not belong to him. Though the contention may look attractive, it cannot be countenanced in view of the finding in the earlier original petition made by this court and also the findings of the court below in the impugned order.
8. XZ is the boundary line between the two properties was not disputed on the earlier occasion. That is confirmed in the present order. The claim of the petitioner is that the boundary line should be a straight line cannot be accepted in view of the sketch prepared and produced by the Commissioner in Ext.P3. Accepting the commission's report, the court below allowed to put up a boundary through XZ line.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the records and also after having gone through the order of the court below, this Court finds little merits in this petition, since no substantiate error could be detected in the commission's report. Moreover, it was based on a compromise decree and the petitioner was unable to show that Ext.P3 is not correct.
In the above reason, this petition is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE Scl.